From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #149 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Wednesday, September 10 2003 Volume 02 : Number 149 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 02:58:06 -0600 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Re: BofM Movie Anticipated Eric Samuelson said: "But I suspect that after seeing this film, I will feel grumpy, and misanthropic, and that I will foster unkind and uncharitable thoughts towards at least some of my brothers and sisters, including those who made the film, and also including those who enjoyed it. So I'm a little concerned, because I think the unkind and uncharitable thoughts I'm anticipating fostering will damn me, if I don't repent from them. So I anticipate that my reaction to this film will move me personally further from, instead of closer to, exaltation." Eric, not to pull a Luna Lovegood or anything, but I gotta say that you crack me up! I had a giggle fit when I read this. Speaking of the BofM Movie, though, David is in the shoot of "Eat, Drink, and Get Married" (aka "Baptists at our Barbecue"), and he said that everyone on crew is planning to see the Book of Mormon movie. The punch line is: Many of them plan to pay for another movie and then sneak into the BofM movie. Now is that naughty, or what? But seriously, I laughed heartily when David told me, but then I thought, "Isn't that so mean? Is that actually very wrong? These people go out on a limb and put a tremendous amount of work into making this big, costly movie, and some are considering seeing it while paying for another film?" Yeah, I actually think it's kind of wrong. David and I have decided that if we ever see each other again once this film is wrapped, if he's still alive and hasn't died of an ulcer or had a terrible car crash from falling asleep at the wheel, or if he doesn't end up with severe chronic fatigue syndrome and end up kind of a vegetable or something like a terminally ill mono sufferer... well, you know what I mean. Even if we do get the chance to see it in the theatre, we'll probably wait until the film goes to DVD to see it. We vote for films with our dollars, right? I will not vote 'yes' with my full price for movie theatre admission (or even discounted movie ticket from Macey's price) unless someone I trust really likes it, but I'll vote 'I guess so' with my little rental fee. Then again, regarding the evil option of paying for another film while seeing this one, do filmmakers not deserve such treatment when they market substandard work to audiences the way this one appears to be doing? Then again, if I ever tried to make a movie at this point, it probably wouldn't be good at all. But, just because you can make a movie, regardless of the quality, does that give you a right to make money off of it? These are really just questions. I've not yet formed an opinion on the matter of this movie, nor do I have the right to since I've not seen it. Here's something that this whole BofM movie discussion has caused me to conclude, though. If the subject matter is as special as this, you don't try to make it in one of your first films. That may not be fair, but here's where that statement comes from. I have a little dream to be a screenwriter. Well, one of the screenplays I'd like to write (not an adaptation) is about a work experience I had once with some emotionally challenged people. I sat in a staff meeting one-day and had a clear vision of a scene that knew I had to write someday. The experience these people are having is so powerful, painful, and poignant, it has to be shared. The things is, I'm not going to touch that subject until I've written at least a few plays and screenplays that I can be proud of. I've started brainstorming and making notes and sample dialogue for my first play, and I want to make sure that before I touch something as precious as that other piece, I really know what I'm doing and if I can do it. Of course, you can and must always rewrite and rewrite and rewrite, I know. There's a limit to how much you can improve on something really stinky, though. Besides, pieces that percolate too long rarely work out the way they should. Think of "Gangs of New York" and "AI." So Dianna's going to wait until she grows up a little more, and she's going to eat on the normal plates before taking out the good china. Do you know what I mean? (Now this is not to say that I don't care about my first play. It's actually very special to me. It will just be a little less difficult an undertaking than the other.) Now is this being fearful? If the inspiration comes, should you just jump on it? I don't think so. That's why you keep creative journals, so that you can come back to things. But, back to the Book of Mormon film, does anyone else think that Gary Rogers has broken my rule? I know IMDB doesn't always have all of a filmmaker's credits, but even so, this guy has one credit on IMDB. One, and it's the Book of Mormon movie. He can't have done a lot if that's all that shows up there. So, I want to ask him, why couldn't you get your feet really wet before taking on something as important as this (if you have to take it on at all)? Why can't you make sure you're a good filmmaker before having a go at this one? And how dare you market it to such a potentially gullible audience? (Okay, that's not very nice of me, so you may omit that last question.) But, seriously, Roberto Benigni didn't just decide to start with Life is Beautiful. He wrote at least 7 screenplays, directed 6, and appeared in about 20 films before making that great film. If you're going to make something and accept a reward for it, be it a financial reward (which this is likely to receive) or a reward of a rave reviews (which it is less likely to receive), you need to make it well. Anyone see "The Sum of All Fears?" We rented it and watched the film and a doc on the film some months back. In the doc, they basically explained that they just wanted to make another Jack Ryan film. So, they decided on The Sum of All Fears. Then, though Harrison Ford was planning on doing the film, he backed out because he didn't like the script. (He's probably a decent judge of scripts, considering not only his resume but the resume of his ex-wife, Melissa Mathison). Then they heard that tall and cute, but mediocre actor Ben Affleck wanted to play Jack Ryan. He was way too young to play the part as it occurs in the series, though. So, what did they do? They reinvented the franchise. Ugh!! After three very successful, somewhat beloved films, they reinvented the franchise. I HATED that movie. The doc annoyed me to no end, because a bunch of the filmmakers sat there and explained why they thought that Sum of All Fears was so much more intelligent than the first three, so much less of an action film. Excuse me? The first three don't exactly make my top ten films, but they are certainly not just action flicks. What's more, The Sum of All Fears was such a cheap movie. The moral to this story: if you can't make a film well, the way it should be made, then don't make it all. Movies are way too much work to be done badly. Yes, they are so much work that they're hard to do well, but you know what I mean by the first statement. I know I'm not a filmmaker, but I'm an actress and an audience member with a brain. If my local movie theatres are going to be so stinky that I have drive up to The Tower in SLC to see some of the cleverest, best made films of the year, and yet I can see plenty of lower quality Mormon films 5 minutes from home, it is unnerving to me. Beside that, I have a husband who is a filmmaker and who is working extremely hard and separating himself from his family to do his part on a feature right now. I miss him terribly, and when I think about the blood, sweat, and tears that he and all of his comrades (crew, cast, director, and writer) are putting into this film, I think to myself that it sure better be worth it. It better be a great movie. I have high hopes for it, largely because they have so many great ingredients, especially a terrific director. If it doesn't turn out to be very good, however, it will be so thoroughly disappointing. Unfortunately, one thing is very likely. Regardless of the quality of this film, which just might end up being brilliant, bizarre, and funny, it will likely make only a fraction of what the Book of Mormon movie will make. And that will truly be a travesty. Dianna Graham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 06:44:08 -0600 From: katie@aros.net Subject: Re: [AML] _Irreantum_ Issue on Romance > Hello folks, if anyone remembers me, I've read over the last couple years, > but not contributed much. The "Dolls House" marriage is ending in divorce, > so there goes the LDS novel on how to get THROUGH the tough situation. > Unless of course I let the heroine's life turn out differently than the real > one. Good to see you all still posting and writing and plugging along. My > plans have been a bit waylaid unfortunately due to the demise of 22 years of > the perfect LDS scenerio. > > Marsha Steed I'm sorry to hear about your divorce. That's got to be a really tough situation. As for the LDS novel, the nice thing about fiction is that your characters can live out possibilities that your own self didn't get to. However, right now you may very well only torture yourself by trying to create this alternate ending to your own life. So use your strength that you've gained, use your insights, use your experience with pain, and everything else that will help you tell a story that only you can tell, but I'd suggest writing something that doesn't mirror your own experience, or even something that mirrors it for a while and then diverges. But in the current LDS market you're still going to have to cough up that happy ending. - --Katie Parker - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:49:42 -0400 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] Death of the Road Show? I haven't been in a stake that did a road show or dance festival for at least 15 years. I've heard a miriad of reasons. Those types of opportunities are readily available outside the church. They take too much time/resources. It places too much of a burden on certain members......... I suppose all those reasons have some validity. However, since life in our last stake all but ended in March except for basketball I'm not sure how far I would stretch that validity. One of the minor heartbreaks of my life was when I heard the stake we used to live in in New Jersey had cancelled their annual production of the Messiah. The reason I heard sited was that the Stake President decided that it was too much of a burden on the members, and that opportunity could be had in the community for those interested. I can tell you that he didn't talk to any of the musicians that participated. We all loved doing the Messiah. After all, it was voluntary. If you couldn't do it one year, oh well, we'll try you again next year. Most musicians are starving for opportunities to share use their talents in a religious setting. I'm a flute player and I feel that way. For many other instrumentalist this was their only opportunity to play for something that was also religious. Oh sure, there are some pianist and organist who would like to be doing something else sometimes. But even those pianists and organists relished the opportunity to dig into something as challenging as the Messiah. As far as the opportunities being out there in the community, for the musicians they just aren't. Not if you are an ameteur. And even for those who would like to go do one of the sing-alongs, they are not as prevelant as they used to be, and often there is an admission charged. I don't understand why it seems the cultural activities are seen as to time/resource absorbing, and yet the sports live on forever. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 08:19:59 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] BofM Movie Fireside I'm not bothered at all by the nude scene Nephi may have filmed. I care not one whit about a particular actor's private life. All I care about is that the actor does a good job. What bothers me most about this film is probably what it's going to be like, based on a preview that a friend of mine who works for CES says about it. According to him, all of our greatest fears will be realized. Such things as, in the same scene, modern dialogue in BofM scenes that have no dialogue and then abrupt switch to King James English quoting from the Book. I shudder just thinking about it. BTW, this was a screening for everyone who worked for CES. It sounds to me that, unlike what Thomas Baggeley claims, these producers have managed to work their way into some sort of semi-official status. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 07:57:31 -0700 From: "Bill Gardner" Subject: Re: [AML] Uplifting Writing >Bill Gardner wrote: >>Oh, and there are people who just want to read a good story and leave the >>hoity-toidy notion of "exploration" to the smart people. >D. Michael Martindale replied: >That was offensive. Bill Gardner makes apology: I'm very sorry I came off as offensive. No offense intended. In fact, I meant that comment as an aside about something that I think, as you stated, writers all know. (I should have winked but I never seem to get those parenth-semicolon things right.) I'm very sorry that came off as it did. I happen to agree completely with your response. I suppose what I should have said is that under every great literary exploration lies a firm structure that many people miss (my main point being that people miss the very fact that writers don't just free-associate their way towards good character exploration, they work at it). In fact, the stength of the underlying structures are what allow a writer the freedom to let their characters breath. The tighter the plot, etc., the more room for an author to allow the characters to really live. Something like that-- you said it well enough. And, I used the term "critic" not in it's professional sense, but in it's more common sense-- you know, "everyone's a critic." Dumb mistake on a list like this. Again, please accept my apology. bill gardner wbgardner.com _________________________________________________________________ Fast, faster, fastest: Upgrade to Cable or DSL today! https://broadband.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:35:13 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Call for Papers: News Parody As one of the people behind the Sugar Beet, I'd love to see an academic write an essay on religious news parody for the following collection. There are other religious news parody sites too that could be looked at (LDS and otherwise). CALL FOR PAPERS: Fake News: THE ONION, THE DAILY SHOW, and Parody News Edited by David Lavery and Richard Campbell David Lavery and Richard Campbell seek your proposals for an in-development collection of essays to be entitled Fake News: THE ONION, THE DAILY SHOW, and Parody News. Over forty years ago novelist Philip Roth observed (in "Writing American Fiction" [1960]) that "American reality" "stupefies , . . . sickens, . . . infuriates, . . . and finally . . . is even a kind of embarrassment to one?s meager imagination. The actuality is continually outdoing our talents, and the culture tosses up figures almost daily that are the envy of any novelist," Even the "daily newspapers," he writes, "fill us with wonder and awe (is it possible, is it happening?), also with sickness and despair." One of the "real" figures Roth thought to be the envy of any fiction writer was Richard Nixon, about whom he would later write the wickedly funny satire Our Gang (1971). Now, in the 21st Century, postmodern American unreality has inspired the proliferation of "fake news," parody journalism. In venues like the online journal The Onion and Comedy Central's The Daily Show, fake news has become an important component in our cultural discourse. FAKE NEWS will be aimed at an educated but not highly-specialized audience. The essays chosen for the volume will be scholarly but not obscure, knowledgeable but not erudite. A publisher will be sought among both mainstream and university presses. The following list of topics is meant only to be suggestive and not exclusionary. * Steven Colbert * covering 9/11 * covering the Impeachment of President Clinton * covering President Bush * covering the 2000 election * covering the California Recall Election * covering Gulf War II * fake news and democratic discourse * fake news and the legitimacy of journalism in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal * fake news and political critique * history of news parody * Bill Maher * New Journalism and news parody * news parody and the history of parody * news parody and postmodernism * news parody and real news * The Onion * parodying the anchor * parodying the correspondent * parodying news genres, conventions, and forms * parodying print journalism * parodying the pundit * Politically Incorrect * Saturday Night Live and the presidents * Saturday Night Live and Gulf War I * Jon Stewart * unintentional news parody * Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me (NPR News Quiz) * "Weekend Update" on Saturday Night Live ASAP, but by no later than the end of November, please send either your completed essay or a 500-750 word account of the essay you would like to contribute as an e-mail attachment (in Word or as a Rich Text File) to both dlavery@mtsu.edu and rcampbel@mtsu.edu. Be sure to include with your proposal a brief bio of yourself. If your essay is chosen for final consideration, you will have until the end of February to complete it. A website for this project will be maintained at: http://www.middleenglish.org/Teleparody/fakenews.htm Dr. DAVID LAVERY is professor of English at Middle Tennessee State University, where he teaches courses on American literature, science fiction, modern poetry, popular culture, and film. He is the author, editor, or co-editor of Late for the Sky: The Mentality of the Space Age (1992), Full of Secrets: Critical Approaches to Twin Peaks (1994), "Deny All Knowledge": Reading The X-Files (1996), Fighting the Forces: What's at Stake in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (2002), Teleparody: Predicting/Preventing the TV Discourse of Tomorrow (2002), and This Thing of Ours: Investigating The Sopranos (2002). DR. RICHARD CAMPBELL is professor and former director of the School of Journalism at Middle Tennessee State University. In addition to authoring the textbook Media and Culture (Bedford/St. Martin's), he has written 60 Minutes and the News: A Mythology for Middle America (1991) and (with Jimmie Reeves) Cracked Coverage: Television News, the Anti-Cocaine Crusade, and the Reagan Legacy (1994). - --------------------------------------- Dr. David Lavery English Department, Box 70 Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, TN 37132 Homepage: http://www.mtsu.edu/~dlavery/ Co-Convenor, The Slayage Conference on BTVS: slayage.tv/conference =============================================== From the Literary Calls for Papers Mailing List CFP@english.upenn.edu Full Information at http://www.english.upenn.edu/CFP/ or write Erika Lin: elin@english.upenn.edu =============================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 11:13:47 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] Book Collecting Conference L. Tom Perry Special Collections will be hosting a special conference entitled "The Gentle Madness of Book Collecting" in room 1130 of the Harold B. Lee Library on October 24, 2003. Speakers will include administration and curators of the department. Featured activities will include small group seminars with hands-on opportunities; interaction with book collectors, curators, and conservators; as well as behind the scenes tours of the special collection vaults. We take the title of our conference from Nicholas Basbanes' wonderful, 1995 book on bibliophiles and bibliomania. As he posits, one irony of the modern internet age is that the passion to possess books is as pervasive today as ever in recorded history. It is still a Gentle Madness. There are those of us who work in the L. Tom Perry Special Collections of the Harold B. Lee library at BYU that have been smitten by this marvelous disease for some time. We, however, collect our books with the intention of sharing them with all who wish to come. Hence, the purpose of our series of seminars is to invite you to take an afternoon and evening to join with us as you indulge your own gentle madness for books. Don Quixote de la Mancha, you recall, addicted himself to the reading of books of chivalry. If you suffer from a book addiction, we promise we will not cure you when we see you on October 24. Registration Information The cost of registration is $45.00, which includes an evening meal and entertainment. To guarantee space, please register before October 1, 2003. To register, please call BYU conferences and workshops at 801.378.2568. Please have your credit card ready. http://sc.lib.byu.edu/gentlemadness.html - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 14:27:24 -0600 From: Steve Perry Subject: Re: [AML] BofM Movie Fireside On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 09:11 PM, Debra Brown wrote: > The movie is already ruined for me ever since someone on here said > that the > guy who plays Nephi was on the show Queer as Folk. Now I just have > these > images in my head which is my own fault for watching the one episode I > caught while channel surfing. So why not go see the movie and get a new set of images? :-) Steve - -- skperry@mac.com Listen to "The Cricket & Seagull Fireside Chat" online at: http://www.wordofmouthmedia.net/cricket&seagull.html - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:10:03 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] _Irreantum_ Issue on Romance Go Michael! I want a Mormon series based in Fairview, Utah about the car-smashing derbies which serve (of course) as metaphors for war. And definitely some books about Mormon wrestlers with names like "Gadianton" and "Zoram." Even my son would read those. Translation: Men may not read romance, but they'll still read crap. ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 - -----Original Message----- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of D. Michael Martindale Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 12:58 AM To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [AML] _Irreantum_ Issue on Romance Tony Markham wrote: > Somewhere I remember a line from Nathaniel Hawthorne complaining about > the "damned mob of scribbling women" who were, in his day, sucking up > all the oxygen and making it difficult for him to both find a market and > make enough to live on. It's something that I guess will always be with > us. Look at the current state of Mormon film and literature. Those who > have the greatest financial success are not the ones who will leave the > greatest cultural legacy. We shouldn't be blaming romance writers or readers. We should be blaming all the males who don't read. If they'd just read, romance novels wouldn't dominate the market. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 18:06:16 -0400 From: "Tony Markham" Subject: RE: [AML] _Irreantum_ Issue on Romance Barbara Hume wrote: [Reading more Hawthorne] would be clueless, since our audience is not interested in morose, psychotic characters obsessed with sin and guilt and death. (Well, that's good for secondary characters or villains). Tony: Back when I left BYU, having discovered a fledgling talent for writing, I got the idea of going back to school to major in English Literature. The idea was to discover what made the great works so confounded "great" in the first place. I had no idea what separated my own hack copy from, say, Dostoyevsky. Clearly I knew there was a difference, but how exactly to close the gap ever-so-slightly? I got accepted into graduate school at the U of U, but knew that I had a lot of catching up to do. The curriculum for a theater major was not exactly the best foundation for, say, American Romanticism (Romance, get it?). That summer I began to fill in the gaps of my reading, and began with "The Scarlet Letter," which I had never before read. How can I begin to describe this amazing experience? This beautiful tale of passion and infidelity, the desperate yearnings of a woman to be held by a man who understood her and the remorse and consequences that followed her final, shuddering surrender to...well, you get the idea. It's the same stuff as "Romance" but so life-changing for me. I read more slowly than I had ever read any book previously, wanting to savor every delicious sentence, every well-turned phrase and finely-wrought sentiment. I despaired when I passed the half-way mark because I knew I was on my way to finishing the best book I'd ever read and I didn't want the experience to ever end. The ending made me mist up and sniffle. Not because the story had a sad ending (contrair--it was up-beat and joyful), but rather because there wasn't any more to read. Barbara: We already have a clue, thank you very much. Any writer needs to know his or her readership. I find it interesting, BTW, that a majority of romance readers are also SF/F readers. Tony: That's because the Fabios and Dirk Digglers who people the landscape in "Romance" fiction are basically aliens. And the women are likewise out of this world! (and the plots...and the dialog...and the ...) I think of Barbara curled up with one of her books every time I'm watching ESPN and they re-run the shot of Brandy Chastain ripping off her bodice, er, jersey, after winning the soccer World Cup. Not that the books Barbara champions have anything to do with ripping a bodice, er, jersey. Oh no. It's just that back in the early days of Xenobia, whenever Barb wrote something excellent, we had the darndest time keeping her from tearing off her clothes in triumph. Or was I not supposed to tell that outside the group? Tony Markham Delhi, NY - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:58:08 -0600 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Uplifting Writing Right on, Paris. A great post. Nan McCulloch - ----- Original Message ----- > I guess I'm a little confused about this "Affermation v Exploration" thing. > I thought the whole bit in writing is honesty. If you are as honest as > possible everything you write will be affermation and exploration. Without > honesty neither affermation or exploration will work. It's supremely > arrogant to worry about the spiritual maturity of readers. They're probably > reading what they can digest and what is most nurishing to them. When a > certain type of book no longer suits their needs they can read something > else. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 06:50:14 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Convictions of Otherness Jacob Proffitt wrote: > Yeah, but that's total speculation. > When thinking of, relating, retelling, or "exploring" the life of > Christ, I think we're well-served if we avoid as many assumptions as we > can. But I'm a fiction writer. Speculation's my job. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:23:00 -0500 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Death of the Road Show? If Road Shows had not existed in the Lawndale Ward in 1964, and I had not been cast in them, then I would probably not be doing theatre today. Thom - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:05:57 -0500 From: "Thomas C. Baggaley" Subject: [AML] Mormon Singers/Songwriters with Songs in Feature Films Mormon singers/songwriters with songs in feature films Ranked by Box Office Performance Songs for which no U.S. box office gross is known are not listed here. The Santa Clause 2: The Mrs. Clause 2002 Kassidy Osborn, Kristyn Osborn, Kelsi Osborn (SHeDAISY) singers: "Santa's Got a Brand New Bag" U.S. box office gross: 139,225,854 budget: 65,000,000 American Beauty 1999 Randy Bachman singer/songwriter: "American Woman" U.S. box office gross: 130,096,601 budget: 15,000,000 Sweet Home Alabama 2002 Kassidy Osborn, Kristyn Osborn, Kelsi Osborn (SHeDAISY) singers: "Mine All Mine" U.S. box office gross: 127,214,072 budget: 63,000,000 Mulan 1998 Donny Osmond Osmond, singer: "I'll Make a Man out of You" Aguilera, singer: "Reflection" (pop version, soundtrack CD only) U.S. box office gross: 120,620,254 budget: 70,000,000 Stuart Little 2 2002 Orrin Hatch songwriter: "Little Angel of Mine" (soundtrack CD only) U.S. box office gross: 64,854,709 budget: 120,000,000 The Cable Guy 1996 Randy Bachman composer: "American Woman" U.S. box office gross: 60,240,295 U.S. box office gross: 47,000,000 Rat Race 2001 Orrin Hatch; Janice Kapp Perry songwriters: "America Rocks" U.S. box office gross: 56,607,223 budget: 48,000,000 A Knight's Tale 2001 Randy Bachman singer/songwriter: "Takin' Care of Business" U.S. box office gross: 56,083,966 U.S. box office gross: 41,000,000 The Color of Money 1986 Warren Zevon singer/songwriter: "Werewolves of London" U.S. box office gross: 52,293,982 budget: 10,000,000 The Mothman Prophecies 2002 Alan Sparhawk and Mimi Parker singers/songwriters: "Half Light" (theme/closing credits song) U.S. box office gross: 35,228,696 U.S. box office gross: 42,000,000 License to Kill 1989 Gladys Knight singer/songwriter: "License to Kill" (title song) U.S. box office gross: 34,667,015 U.S. box office gross: 40,000,000 The Shaggy Dog 1959 Roberta Shore singer, theme song U.S. box office gross: 29,000,000 budget: crazy/beautiful 2001 Maren Ord singer/songwriter: "Perfect" U.S. box office gross: 16,929,123 budget: 14,000,000 Thomas and the Magic Railroad 2000 Maren Ord singer: "Shining Time" (theme/closing credits song) U.S. box office gross: 15,911,333 budget: 19,000,000 FM 1978 Warren Zevon songwriter: "Poor, Poor Pitiful Me" U.S. box office gross: 5,800,000 God's Army 2000 Greg Simpson; Julie de Azevedo; Ryan Shupe; Cherie Call Simpson, singer/songwriter: "Look to the Heavens"; Simpson, singer/songwriter: "Seven Wonders"; de Azevedo, singer/songwriter: "Best of Me"; de Azevedo, singer/songwriter: "Living in Oz" (CD only); Shupe, songwriter: "Best of Me"; Shupe, singer/songwriter: "Go to Hell"; Call, singer/songwriter: "Snow" (CD only); Call, singer/songwriter: "Restless Soul" (CD only) U.S. box office gross: 2,628,829 budget: 300,000 Love at Large 1990 Warren Zevon singer/songwriter: "Searching For A Heart"; singer: "You Don't Know What Love Is" U.S. box office gross: 1,436,308 budget: Joshua 2002 Orrin Hatch songwriter: "Everyday Heroes" U.S. box office gross: 1,374,143 budget: 9,000,000 The Singles Ward 2002 Janice Kapp Perry; Maren Ord; Clara W. McMaster; Jamen Brooks; John Hancock; Tim Fullmer; dozens more Ord, singer/songwriter: "Everyday"; Perry, songwriter: "The Church of Jesus Christ"; McMaster, songwriter: "Teach Me To Walk"; Brooks/Hancock, singers: "God Be With You"; Fullmer, arranger: "Where Love Is"; etc. U.S. box office gross: 1,250,798 budget: 500,000 The R.M. 2003 Maren Ord; Janice Kapp Perry; Clara W. McMaster; Jamen Brooks; John Hancock; Tim Fullmer; dozens more Ord, singer: "Where Can I Turn For Peace"; Perry, songwriter: "In The Hollow Of Thy Hand"; "We'll Bring The World His Truth"; "I'm Trying To Be Like Jesus"; McMaster, songwriter: "My Heavenly Father Loves Me"; Brooks/Hancock, singers: "Love One Another"; Fullmer, arranger: "Onward Christian Soldiers" U.S. box office gross: 1,085,492 budget: 500,000 Brigham City 2001 Ryan Shupe singer/songwriter: "Banjo Boy"; singer/songwriter: "New Emotion"; singer/songwriter: "Big World" U.S. box office gross: 905,073 budget: 900,000 Jack Weyland's Charly 2002 Brett Raymond; Jeremy Elliott; Cassey Golie; Alex Boye; Cherie Call; Alexander E. Jenkins; Rodney Strong; Michael Dowdle; Katherine Thompson; Jenny Jordan Raymond, singer/songwriter: "What Craziness is Love"; Raymond, singer/songwriter: "Got a Thing for You"; Elliott, songwriter: "Got a Thing for You"; Golie, singer/songwriter: "Living Out Loud"; Boye, singer/songwriter: "Cold Hard Streets"; Call, singer/songwriter: "Restless Soul"; Call, songwriter: "A Heartbeat Away"; Jenkins, singer/songwriter: "Restless Soul"; Strong, songwriter: "St. Angelos"; Dowdle, singer: "St. Angelos"; Thompson, performer: "A Heartbeat Away"; Jordan, singer: "A Heartbeat Away" U.S. box office gross: 813,685 budget: 950,000 Last Night 1999 Randy Bachman composer: "Takin' Care of Business" U.S. box office gross: 591,165 budget: 2,000,000 Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead 1995 Warren Zevon singer/songwriter: "Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead" U.S. box office gross: 529,766 Traveller 1997 Kevin Sharp singer: "Young Love" U.S. box office gross: 500,649 The Swan Princess: Escape from Castle Mountain 1997 Clive Romney; Kenneth Cope; James Arrington Romney credited as co-writer of all songs; Cope, singer: "Far Longer Than Forever"; Arrington, one of singers: "No Fear Rap" U.S. box office gross: 235,766 - - Thomas C. Baggaley, LDS Film.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:49:03 -0600 From: jeffress@xmission.com Subject: [AML] AML-Review Archives Update Ok, so after many months, I have finally carved out the time to update the AML-List Review Archive. To the best of my knowledge, the archive now contains every review posted to the AML-List up through yesterday. But, hear my plea: If you have written one or more reviews this year, please check the archive to see that I have included all your reviews. If I have missed one of your reviews, please send me a note at , and I will get it added to the archive. (Please don't reply to the list.) You don't need to send me the review itself, I'll find it in the list archives. Just send me your name and the title of the work. You can also send any corrections or comments to the same address. You can access the AML-List Review archive at: http://www.aml-online.org/reviews/ Brief statistics: Total reviews: 742 New reviews this year: 81 Number of individual reviewers this year: 38 (out of about 290 individuals subscribed to the AML-List/Digest/Mag) Champion reviewer of all time: Jeff Needle, 129 reviews Most reviewed author: Orson Scott Card, 35 reviews Most reviewed publisher: Deseret Book, 112 reviews (Deseret Book has 192 reviews if you include Bookcraft, Shadow Mountain, and Eagle Gate.) Since I haven't sent out an update in a while, let me emphasize that you only need two qualifications to send a review to the AML-List: - You belong to the list in one of its forms - You have an opinion about a work of LDS-related art Well, you would also have to write and submit a review, but that's more an assignment rather than a prequalification. Thank you all for your continued reviewing, - -- Terry Jeffress AML-List Review Archivist - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:19:43 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Honesty in Reviewing (Comp 1) [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From tlaulusa@bridlewoodacres.com Tue Sep 09 07:21:00 2003 Jeff: So long as you state up front how much of the book you've > read, is there anything inherently dishonest about commenting on a book > based on what you've read? Absolutely not. You openly gave your opinion about how much you had read. Just because you review a lot of books doesn't mean everything you say has to be a review. Tracie Laulusa - ------------------------------------------- >From pchamberlain@westcon.net Tue Sep 09 08:26:22 2003 One sniff tells me it's dog crap. I don't have to eat to be sure. Peter Chamberlain - ------------------------------------------- >From adamszoo@sprintmail.com Tue Sep 09 09:28:43 2003 Jeff, I think you're an honest reviewer, and that what you did was perfectly acceptable. Making a comment on 25 pages and stating so is very honest. It would be dishonest to post a long review on something you only read a few pages of, without saying that was the case! That's no different than those dissing romance novels in another thread, which they can't get through more than a chapter of. Everyone knows they didn't finish. This person perhaps really enjoyed the book and didn't appreciate a different opinion? or felt you didn't give it a fair shot? I'm sad when someone says they didn't finish my book because it got too "hard" to read (subject matter) but I don't blame them or force them to finish. I just let it roll off. It wasn't to their taste. If this book wasn't to your taste--that's your opinion and you're entitled to express it! Keep reviewing!! Linda Adams - ---------------------------------------------- >From jonathan@mds3d.com Tue Sep 09 09:53:06 2003 Explaining up front how much of the book you've read is a great idea. How many reviewers who "read" the entire book actually skip over much of it, anyway? Besides, it's worth knowing about when a book can't sustain interest after the first 25 pages. Jonathan Neville - ---------------------------------------------- >From barbara@techvoice.com Tue Sep 09 12:18:34 2003 I understand your dilemma. Just yesterday I realized that a book I'd been sent for review is unreadable. The story isn't bad, but the prose is bright purple and the characters unbelieveable. I will not take hours out of my life to wade through 450+ pages of such bad writing. What I plan to do is to drop a note to the author and say that I prefer not to review the book because my comments on the style would not be helpful to her. It would be dishonest for me not to let readers know in a review that the prose is turgid and awkward, and that it's loaded to the max with melodramatic adjectives and adverbs. I've had to send such notes abefore, and the authors have always agreed. What I hate is that the book is from an e-publisher. It's this sort of thing that holds e-publishing back--so many atrocious books come from that source. I don't see anything dishonest about what you did, since you didn't present your opinion as though it were based on the book as a whole. Your correspondent clearly feels that it would improve your opinion of the book, which may or may not be true. barbara hume - --------------------------------------------- >From bmdblu2@comcast.net Tue Sep 09 12:49:35 2003 I would say that your accuser didn't know the difference between a review and a comment. You certainly have the right to not finish reading a book that you have started, for whatever reason. If a reader doesn't like a book and puts it aside, they certainly have the right to express the reason for this to their peers, or anyone else. Your accuser also has the right to disagree with your comment, based on a more comprehensive reading, but the inference that your "review" is dishonest is simply inappropriate. I usually ignore ignorant remarks, acknowledging them or attempting to discuss them with their owners is usually a waste of time. Bill Willson, writer - ------------------------------------------------- >From wwbrown@burgoyne.com Tue Sep 09 13:52:53 2003 I am so sorry somebody had the gall to call you dishonest about this, Jeff. If you had pretended it was a full review, that is one thing. But believe me, if the editors in publishing houses even read 25 pages of a book without expressing an opinion, it would be a marked day! I went through more than a thousand manuscripts one year, and I must say that MANY of them were cast aside after the first PAGE, let alone 25 pages. With the experience you have, with the amount of reading you have done, you are more than welcome to cast a book aside after a few pages, and express your opinion about what you have read! Join the HUNDREDS of publishing editors who have done just that! If a writer can't prove himself in the first stretch, he's lost out. It MIGHT get better later on. But usually it DOES NOT! I vote for you and for throwing bad books in the D.I. pile! Cheers! Mariliyn Brown - ---------------------------------------------- >From margaret_young@byu.edu Tue Sep 09 15:43:23 2003 I think Jeff is a brilliant reviewer. I'm not a reviewer, but I have judged some literary contests--and have sometimes seen the first few lines of a clunky poem or an essay and known immediately that it was not a winner. Rather than waste my time with it--knowing from experience that if a piece of writing starts out clunky, it won't be getting smooth any time soon--I have skimmed parts and then put it in the "not a winner" category. With enough experience (and Jeff certainly has that), you know when you've got good writing in your hands and when you don't. Now, I did get one dishonest review. In this case, the reviewer (a guy from the SL Tribune who I won't name) gave the basic plot of _One More River to Cross_ and said that Jane James married Elijah Abel. Obviously, the reviewer hadn't read the book. But he implicitly claimed he had. THAT, to me, was dishonest. ________________ Margaret Young - ---------------------------------------------- >From kcmadsen@utah-inter.net Tue Sep 09 18:27:08 2003 I don't find it dishonest in the least, Jeff. You didn't posit it your comments as a review, but just lending your voice to a discussion. You disclosed how much of the book you read, how it made you feel, your decision to not continue to read. What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. The person writing you and implying you behaved dishonestly strikes me as having a hidden agenda, an axe to grind, or some such. It's always hard to let things go when you feel your character has been called into question, but knowing you as we do on the list, I'd have to say be a duck--let it slide off your back. It's not worth a moment of your attention. Kim Madsen - ---------------------------------------------- >From fcp@email.byu.edu Tue Sep 09 19:30:47 2003 Gosh, people make comments all the time about books they have read only partially or not at all, say for example SCRIPTURE. I saw a friend of my outside the University of Arizona Institute building one day. He had just been released as a bishop, and before that had been a member of the Stake High Council, and before that a Sunday School teacher after having been baptized. He told me he was taking a Book of Mormon class because he had never read it or studied it closely. I think you were honest in your representation of what you had read, and you were direct in stating how much you had read. A reader's unwillingness to finish a book is a commentary on it in itself. I have often said, "That's it for me," when reading a book or watching a movie that no longer compels my interest or attention. You start watching a video and soon discover that it trespasses on your individual sensibilities or tolerances for violence or pornography, stupidity, dishonesty, or whatever. Are you compelled to watch it all the way through? It would be silly to say that everyone is required to read from cover to cover every book they pick up, even in the capacity of a reviewer. Fred Pinnegar - --------------------------------------------- >From lajackson@juno.com Wed Sep 10 09:51:44 2003 "Jeff, I remember that discussion and found nothing wrong with any of your comments. I too have started books and not finished them and would never offer a review on 25 pages. Debbie Brown who will now get off her soapbox and remove her Jeff Needle for governor of California pin" _______________ Oooh! He's running? Do I have time to move to California and establish residency so I can vote for him? [gryn] I think Jeff writes excellent and fair reviews and his previous comments on this matter, not a review, were appropriate. I know from personal experience that he is very careful about how he reviews and what he says. Of course, if he happened to mention that he had read a few pages of something I had written and then decided not to finish it or to review it, I would be quite concerned and would probably begin rewriting. But still, his comments would have been honest and valuable. Larry Jackson - ---------------------------------------------- >From lauramaery@writerspost.com Wed Sep 10 13:37:52 2003 Need one consume the entirety of a toad in order to state, honestly, after having consumed a mere bite, that one abhors the taste? - --lauramaery, who believes that a writer's inability to sustain the reader's interest is, in itself, sufficient reason to criticise a piece of writing. Since the remainder of the writing, being unreadable, won't be read, it would seem rather pointless to review it. LauraMaery (Gold) Post - -------------------------------------- >From rrasband@yahoo.com Wed Sep 10 18:43:09 2003 I don't review books I can't finish. ===== R.W. Rasband - -------------------------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #149 ******************************