From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #181 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, October 8 2003 Volume 02 : Number 181 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 01:18:58 -0600 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [none] - -0400 From: "Justin Halverson" To: Subject: RE: [AML] What Is Kitsch? Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 00:04:48 -0400 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Alan Mitchell wrote: Although Spencer Kimball longed for=20 > the day when he could see art about the restoration, won't it > be very easy to fall into kitsch? After all, The artist has=20 > to use themes charged with stock emotions.(1) They will be=20 > instantly and effortlessly identifiable (2)=20 I guess I'm not sure why art about the restoration has to espouse either of these qualities. I think of _The Backslider_ as a book very much about restoration (among them, implicitly, the Restoration), and yet it neither evokes "stock emotion"--although I as well am unclear as to what this might mean--nor are its meaning or referent always "instantly and effortlessly identifiable". I can see how it would be easy to fall into these, but not by any means necessary. Justin Halverson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 18:36:24 -1000 From: Randall Larsen Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Moratorium Clark Goble wrote: "And to me the question is, why should I waste 2 hours and 14 dollars for me and my wife to watch the film... The motivations of someone enjoying film and making film are oft times quite different." Ah... but true filmakers transmit the whisperings of the muses-- they don't pander to audiences. If filmgoers go to films expecting "sweet food," they are going to be disappointed. Homer's character Apollo chides us: when you have put away craving for sweet food, [500] come with me singing the hymn Ie Paean (Hail, Healer!), until you come to the place where you shall keep my rich temple." http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=3DHH+3+493 The motion picture theater is a secular temple. There "all the Muses together, voice sweetly answering voice, [190] hymn the unending gifts the gods enjoy and the sufferings of men, all that they endure at the hands of the deathless gods, and how they live witless and helpless and cannot find healing for death or defence against old age. Meanwhile the rich-tressed Graces and cheerful Seasons dance with [195] Harmonia and Hebe and Aphrodite, daughter of Zeus, holding each other by the wrist. ....Apollo is my name: but you I brought here over the wide gulf of the sea, meaning you no hurt; nay, here you shall keep my rich temple that is greatly honored among men, and you shall know the plans of the deathless gods, and by their will [485] you shall be honored continually for all time. And now come, make haste and do as I say. First loose the sheets and lower the sail, and then draw the swift ship up upon the land. Take out your goods and the gear of the straight ship, [490] and make an altar upon the beach of the sea: light fire upon it and make an offering of white meal. Next, stand side by side around the altar and pray:" The movie audience is gathered at the altar so to speak. Each person is meant to react to the movie as an individual and at the same time to join in the great chorus. Each person's "voice sweetly answering [the] voice" of the filmaker. Its not just you and your wife watching the movie. Its 200 people who are about to share an experience-- to feel the pathos of the life that is on the altar. Its worth the 14 bucks. You can't get this experience watching a video in your home. If the filmaker fails to deliver, then I guess he really wasn't listening to his muse. kind regards, Randall Larsen University of Hawaii - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 22:59:06 -0600 From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Supporting Mormon Movies Dear Marilyn, I couldn't agree more that good writing (and good story) is the basis of both. Most criticism of movies (Mormon and mainstream) on this list finds fault with the story, and occasionally dialog. Okay, and acting. And sometimes casting. But the basis=3D=3Dthere will never = be a moratorium on that. Alan. > By the way, P.S., dear Alan. You made us all sit up and take more=20 > interest in this list, all right! But the very fact that the basis of=20 > good movies is > good writing gives them more in common than we might admit. Cheers!=20 > Marilyn Brown > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature=20 > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 23:24:28 -0600 From: "Alan Rex Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Moratorium I stand reprimanded. Chris is absolutely right. Benson said. "I have a vision of artists putting into film, drama, literature, music, and paintings great themes and great characters from the Book of Mormon." Perhaps we ought to be discussing this. [Alan Rex Mitchell] P.S. Chris and others have pointed out the practical inconsistencies in this thread, to which I would respond: There has never been a voluntary moratorium that nobody disagreed with for sincerely non-altruistic reasons, and this one is no different. > The quote is from President Benson himself in the > October, 1988 General Conference in the talk "Flooding > the Earth with the Book of Mormon". It is recorded in > the November, 1988 Ensign. I included the one quote, > but the whole talk is worth a read. > > I will not entertain a discussion of how a prophet > should order his words in a General Conference talk. > > Chris Oglethorpe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 01:35:20 -0600 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [AML] Computer Technology and the Writer (was: Book Burning Justified?) From: Clark Goble To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list Regarding lost files due to outdated file formats. I had the same=20 problem. Lots of old files like my Patriarchal Blessing, Line of=20 Authority, and other things were in old MacWrite format from the 80's=20 that no one reads now. Then I had a bunch of WP5.1 files that no=20 program in OSX read. I've even encountered a few other odd files. A good program to have is a file converter. For the Macintosh=20 MacLinkPlus has dozens of conversion programs that can update you to=20 the latest format. Admittedly it costs a little bit, although=20 sometimes you can find it on sale. The other thing to keep in mind, for the price conscious, is that=20 OpenOffice in Linux is a fairly good word processor that will read and=20 write MS Office files. AbiWord is, in some ways, even better. Of course pleas for new programs reading older programs will likely go=20 unheaded. Those filters cost developers money. If few people use=20 those formats now (say WP5.1) then why spend the thousands of dollars=20 to license the filters or hire someone to code for them. I recognize=20 it is hard for those who upgrade slowly to understand, but outside of=20 big companies (i.e. Microsoft, Adobe or Apple), most software companies=20 have limited resources. And big companies have limited resources too=20 and further often it is not in their best interests to support=20 competing formats. (Especially if, like Microsoft, they are the=20 dominant power in the market) One other thing *all* writers should do is rebackup your files every=20 few years. Unlike paper, most computer media doesn't last that long. =20 If you have writing on floppy disks from the 80's or even early 90's=20 there is a good chance that they have become corrupt. I know I lost a=20 lot of files I had from college that way. The other problem is that=20 end up with a bunch of disks that suddenly you don't have hardware to=20 read anymore. (Say old 800K floppies or Bernoulli removable hard=20 disks) And don't assume CD's are better. Back your files up in=20 multiple places. Nothing is worse than *finally* wanting to look up your old journals=20 from college and realize that they don't exist anymore because of=20 computer files. Now that everyone is putting home movies and photos on=20 computer this is even more important. (For instance all my wedding=20 pictures and movies are on CD) If you want to keep them, plan ahead. For writers that is even more important. Clark Goble - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 01:46:13 -0600 From: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Moratorium ___ Bill ___ | By artist, do you mean the actor? ___ I was trying to be as broad as possible. In one place I focused on=20 actor and those who focus more on the actor's stretching rather than=20 how the performance fits the whole. In an other I mentioned writers=20 like Salinger. But really I was trying to speak of art and artists in=20 general. ___ Bill ___ | The writer of the original story is the primary artist. We | get little enough recognition as it is. ___ Perhaps, although that really depends upon the production. But in=20 general I agree with you and think it sad that lead actors are=20 collecting $20 million dollars and getting the credit while writers are=20 often ignored. (Although I believe that pay has definitely improved=20 from the situation in the 40's through the 80's) My real point though was that there isn't *a* writer. Rather each=20 actor and other participant to varying degrees is also a writer. =20 That's what makes film and to a lesser extent theatre so interesting=20 relative to books. To me it gives it a depth that a book can never=20 achieve. On the other hand the book typically demands more effort from the=20 audience. The audience is almost always a significant author in=20 determining the meaning of a book. In film and theatre the audience is=20 far more passive. (Although clearly not entirely passive) [Clark Goble] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 12:44:27 +0000 From: "Elizabeth Petty Bentley" Subject: Re: [AML] Marketing Fiction >From: Linda Adams >I'm coming around to the idea that LDS authors of fiction, or the >publishers/distributors, really ought to market through national chains, >and hit up national, non-LDS non-Utah libraries harder. >Put our LDS novels in every library across the country and Mormon >readers >will flock to them because there is no financial risk if the book is >crummy. I've been marketing my novel to libraries and bookstores with some modest success. In order to do so, I've spent considerable time compiling a nationwide list, which I'd be willing to share. It has over 10,000 e-mail addresses. I can send the mail-merge file as an attachment. Beth Bentley [ed: Not over AML-list, private inquiries should go directly to Beth. - --Jacob] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 12:58:25 +0000 From: "Elizabeth Petty Bentley" Subject: Re: [AML] Computer Technology and the Writer >From: "Bill Willson" >I just want to be able to write my stuff and still be able to read it=20 >ten years from now. > >When I first started writing at home I had an IBM PC Jr. I could bring=20 >work from work home and edit it and add to it. At that time we were on=20 >DOS 1 or 2 After we left DOS and went to windows I discovered that all=20 >the writing files I had saved in DOS were no longer readable. Luckily I >had filed hard copies of it all, and when TextBridging software and=20 >scanners became available I was able to scan all the files and save=20 >them electronically. I started writing in the days of CP-M. I now have a handy shareware=20 conversion program, if anyone out there had the same experience I did. The=20 only problem is that nothing I wrote back then is worth reading. Beth [Bentley] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 06:27:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Mary Aagard Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Moratorium Alan Rex Mitchell wrote: Like King Mosiah, I'm worried about the rising generation. It's 1984. It's Fahrenheit 451. Its Brave New World. While those on this list (and a few in your seminary class) can still read and write and think, the masses of Mormon youth prefer the bread-and-circus route to salvation. Oy weh ist mir! If your report is true, then we better pray for Dutcher, Vuissa, Halestrom, and others to reach our youth with movies before they are all lost to Disney, Warner Bros., Dreamworks, etc. We had better kick more money and talent into the BofM movie (and sign up Matt Damon and Britney Spears) so they can gain testimonies before they get hooked on Adam Sandler movies because they are so cute that we don't mind the vulgarity. Tis an unweeded garden; things gross and unnatural posses it merely. =20 Mary says: I don't think you need to be that worried about the youth of the world. IMO, Adolescence is important, rebellion, trial and error, frivolity is important. I'm 23 and I have a sister you just turned 20. Traditionally, I was much more of the book worm, opinionated type and my little sister was into Sailor Moon, cartoons, and cats. In her later teens she started developing such an amazing sense of humor and personality. She started reading all kinds of things and watching and experiencing things along with her daily diet of anime and Dr. Pepper. She watches and reads a lot of stuff that we'd all consider junk maybe but she also knows how to critique it, knows how to appreciate it. She has a kind of humanity and love for people and life's creations that is so comforting to be around.=20 =20 I think teens need time to develop their vocabularies. They need time to adjust to the world of their peers and the quickly approaching world of the adults. I seriously think screwing up, experience, challenges, making choices are important things for a teen to experience. Granted, we don't want the teenagers of the world and especially of the church to drink, eat, and sleep with everything in sight for the sake of experience. But I really don't think we should write them off as being these mindless masses that only consume glittery things. The will be attracted to the glittery things, but in a sense it is a passing phase, adulthood comes soon enough, reality sets in. Being a teenager is hard enough without having to become a mini-adult as soon as you enter the seminary program. And you can like Adam Sandler, and love Jack Black, and still have a strong testimony. =20 [Mary Aagard] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 12:53:28 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Romance and Pornography Eugene Woodbury wrote: > Men do value themselves in comparison to other men less in terms of=20 > physical stature (granted, the tens of thousands of weight machines=20 > sitting in basements give lie to that assertion, though how many are=20 > gathering dust?) than they do in terms of social and economic success. > But good luck banning millionaires and billionaires from the covers of > Forbes and Business Week. While I accept the general statement, I would hesitate to underestimate the power of physical stature. One of the things you'll notice about many CEOs and politicians is that they tend to be taller than average. People respond to stature, and tend to give taller, heavier people more respect on initial meeting than they do smaller or shorter or thinner people. Maybe it's a holdover from childhood where authority figures were all "big people" or "grown ups." In my limited observation, people seem to reply to stature in more or less this order--1) height, 2) total mass, and 3) muscularity. Thus, a man like Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid in the Harry Potter movies) who is tall and heavy is viewed as a powerful man even though he is clearly not muscular. Shawn Bradley or Manute Bol (7'6" and 7'7") are viewed with less awe than Shaquille O'Neal or Moses Malone (7'1" and 6'11") because the shorter men are heavier. A few years ago a body builder named Franco Colombo was setting all kinds of strength records, and had a stunningly muscular physique. But because he was only 5'5" (though he weighed well over 200 pounds) many people saw him not as physically imposing, but as sort of cute in a small-man sort of way. At 6'6" Lou Ferrigno got much more attention, though it was generally agreed that Colombo's body was both more massive and more developed relative to his frame. I have a good friend who is about 5'4 and thin-ish, while I stand just short of 6'2" and am quite heavy (and with no evident muscularity). It's fascinating when we go to lunch together, because people will look right past my friend and address me even when he stands in front and initiates contact with the host or server. It's constant and consistent. Of course they also tend to bring me the bill at the end. Of course we'll all overcome our initial impressions once we see other evidence of someone's power. And while I agree that economic prosperity is viewed as the ulitmate expression of power, it's still a measure of power. Money means control, and control means self-determination. I think what we respond to is the illusion of freedom. Which is why long hair or intentional baldness, piercings, and tattoos have become popular as expressions of freedom from convention for those without obvious economic power. All of which is just a musing on perception. The illusion of freedom is a powerful draw. Big people are perceived as being able to impose their will on less big people, and so they are perceived to have greater freedom to control their environment. If we want to portray self-determination in film or story, size does matter. It may be a cheat, but it's one that tends to work. > Henry Miller and Anais Nin may be kept behind lock and key at the BYU=20 > library, but you can buy them off the shelf without an eyebrow raised=20 > at the Barnes & Noble a mile up the street. And, well, Harry Potter=20 > has roused a few rabbles, but no one's taking those rabbles all that=20 > seriously, not as seriously as Mel Gibson's MOVIE (which hardly=20 > anybody has seen). Apples and oranges, I think. Moby Dick trumps The Three Stooges, not because of inherent limitations in the medium, but because of the seriousness of the subject matter. Movies are more accessible to larger audiences, not least because they use more of the senses to communicate. When I worked for a computer-based education company one of the core concepts was that information was not enough--it was the combination of sound, color, animation *and* information that created learning. Remove any of these things and the educational value of the material was substantially reduced. Our competitors tended to look better than we did, but we had provably better content, so we did well. Which is part of why writers are taught to use all five senses--engage the reader beyond the informational. A film can do that more easily, but sound and motion without content falls just as flat as information without presentation. A droning voice will communicate the same content less effectively than an interesting one. In one of the most confusing moments of my literary life, my friend Scott Bronson (a professional actor) read aloud one of the most horrible poems I had ever read. His presentation took a terrible verse and made it interesting (if not quite good). Presentation matters as much as content. And audience controls presentation. On the question of pornography versus romance...I don't know. We objectify each other all the time, so that's not the whole answer by itself. Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 18:13:18 EDT From: JanaRiess@aol.com Subject: [AML] Supporting Mormon Movies/Bad Art In a message dated 10/3/03 10:40:27 PM,=20 owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com writes: > I think we have universal license to complain about bad art. We just=20 > will never be able to agree on what it is! Some of the worst things=20 > I've ever seen or experienced are widely appreciated by others. >=20 This reminded me of the time my husband and I were driving through Missouri=20 en route to a family reunion. When we realized that we were coming within a=20 stone's throw of the Precious Moments Chapel, how could we not stop? For=20 those of you who have been living under a high-brow rock, Precious Moments=20 figurines are those kitschy little statuettes with the teardrop eyes that you can buy=20 in a Hallmark store. They have their limited runs, collector's plates, etc.=20 The whole line was created by a Christian artist named Samuel Butcher, and=20 to welcome his many fans he built this chapel in Missouri. It's a whole=20 tourist destination with an RV park and a wedding factory and the whole works. =20 I was there with notepad in hand, thinking that I'd do a story on the place=20 and its appeal. But during the tour something strange happened to me. Phil=20 and I could hardly keep straight faces when the tour guide reverently=20 described the interior of the chapel before we entered it. Inspired by his trip to=20 Italy, Butcher created the ceiling of the PM Chapel in fresco. So the whole=20 darn ceiling is filled with these floaty pastel children with teardrop eyes. =20 We thought it was hideous, but we kept our mouths shut out of respect for=20 EVERY OTHER PERSON in the room, who clearly loved it and felt profoundly moved by=20 it. =20 So, the lesson I learned was this: one person's "stock" emotion (as related=20 in the very helpful definition of kitsch that someone posted) is another's=20 genuine emotion. It's a lesson I try to keep in mind when I am reading a lot of=20 schlocky Christian fiction for work. I still have to call the books as I see=20 them, but I can't denigrate or trivialize those who read them. Jana Riess, who has a whole collection of Mormon kitsch, including B of M=20 action figures still in their boxes! - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 16:47:37 -0700 (PDT) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Deseret News: Believers Invited To Preach In Hell Deseret News, Saturday, October 04, 2003 Believers are invited to preach in hell By Jerry Johnston Deseret Morning News As a boy, I often heard stories about the hardships of my elders. I'd hear how=20 they walked six miles uphill to school, then walk six miles - uphill - back=20 home. I'd hear how kids worked all day for pennies. I know I will never have such stories to share. My boyhood hardships involved=20 watching black-and-white television and using reel-to-reel tape recorders. My agonies were hardly Job's. Still, I do amaze kids at times when I tell them how trusting people used to be. I remember writing out a check on the back of an envelope at the local grocery=20 store. I'd drop motel keys in mailboxes knowing they'd get home. I remember IOUs=20 written on paper bags. It wasn't we were naive then. If anyone had abused such things we would have=20 stopped doing them. But the practices went on for years and years. What I find interesting is the way different people respond to such tales of=20 trust. Some people believe if we show enough gumption we can return to those simple=20 days again. These people, I've found, also tend to be members of "The Flat Earth=20 Society." The second group knows that memory can make the past look rosier than it was,=20 but they love the ideal. And when reality gets too real, they go resurrect those=20 days to get through the night. It's the third response, however, that never fails to startle me - the people=20 who wouldn't go back at all. They think people were complacent and spiritually=20 flabby then. As one Deseret Morning News letter writer pointed out, it was the=20 world found in Voltaire, a world without self-questioning, where no one felt=20 challenged to change their ways or view life with fresh eyes. And it's that last group of people, I think, that we better count on. Yes, the world today is harrowing . Muck and murks lurks about. The devil is at=20 large. Morality's a mess. You won't find people penning checks on envelopes=20 today. Still, when the folks in that "third group" see the current confusion they lick=20 their lips. When things are unsettled, they can be changed. It's the stump stuck=20 in the mud that's hard to move. Those souls look at our topsy-turvy world and see a chance to do some good. I thought of them last night while watching the new film "Luther." There,=20 Germany is in an uproar. The streets are filled with riots. Buildings are=20 burned. People are burned. Martin Luther looks over it all, then turns to his=20 followers. "Satan is inviting us to preach in hell," he tells them. "Is it a trap, or an=20 opportunity?" Martin Luther saw it as an opportunity and changed the world. Now, again, believers are being invited to preach in hell. All the preaching in=20 the world can never return us to the past. That fire has gone out. The ashes are=20 cold. But with Luther's fervor, perhaps we can push through to something else - -=20 something wiser, warmer and more meaningful than the simple, sunny days of yore. I, for one, hold to that. Thinking otherwise is unthinkable. E-mail: jerjohn@desnews.com C 2003 Deseret News Publishing Company=20 - --0-1899180748-1065311257=3D:97123-- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 00:01:18 -0600 From: "Kim Madsen" Subject: RE: [AML] (SL Trib) _Work & Glory_ Movie From a Des News article by Vince Horiuchi posted on the list (re: Work and the Glory Movie): "The film is being produced by Scott Swofford, a one-time producer for Oscar-winning director Kieth Merrill, who made an LDS-sanctioned film, "Legacy" and has produced IMAX films for National Geographic Society and Disney." Does anyone else find this an interesting name dropping...a famous film-making Mormon success story's name loosely tied to the project? I had to read it twice before it sunk in that Kieth Merrill isn't the cinematographer on the project but rather, worked at one time with the person producing the movie. I can't help saying it--"so?". I can't figure out why Horiuchi thought this was worth weaving into the story. [It makes me wonder how many levels removed from Kevin Bacon Swofford is as well.] Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Merrill's credits being touted here: "Legacy, Imax Films for National Geographic and Disney"? Hasn't Swofford got any credits of his own to tout? And does "LDS-sanctioned film" mean Legacy was sanctioned by the LDS people or the official organization of the church? Such subtle word games. Where was this guy's editor?...oops, never-mind, I forgot he was writing for the Des News, which is undoubtly why the LDS-sanctioned angle would be considered newsworthy. Kim Madsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 10:18:27 -0800 From: "John W. Redelfs" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Moratorium Bill Willson wrote: >What if when they invented papyrus the scholars of the day destroyed=20 >all the clay tablets and leather scrolls? What if when paper came along >we got rid of all the other mediums of writing? What if when we=20 >microfilmed a document, the original hard copy was automatically=20 >destroyed? Has someone suggested that we destroy print media? I must have missed=20 something. --JWR [John Redelfs] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 20:00:38 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Literary Property Rights Protection Yes indeed! PROTECTING copyright is always an essential element to establishing a legally arguable copyright case. Remember, Copyright Law is NOT there to protect the artist; Copyright Law is there to ESTABLISH A PUBLIC DOMAIN. The side-effect is protecting the artist. Some companies (MGM, Disney especially) become rabidly over-protective and hunt out every possible infringement, but without a doubt, if you knowingly allow a production or publication without permission, you are forfeiting your copyright and granting or gifting your work to the public domain. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 02:21:28 -0600 From: "Jamie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] An Evening with Eric D. Snider: Will Make Jokes for Food Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 11:39:26 -0400 Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list So when do you kick off the nationwide tour? ~Jamie Laulusa >"Eric D. Snider >The show is at 8 p.m. Monday, Oct. 13, at ComedySportz, 36 W. Center=20 >St., Provo. Tickets are $5 at the door. Doors open at 7:30. > >Eric performed a similar show in July as an experiment to see if a)=20 >people would come and b) they would enjoy themselves. People did show=20 >up, and there were no noticeable ill effects, so Eric has elected to do >it all again. This time, he has beefed up the show, added some=20 >material, and will be recording it for a future CD release. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:29:50 -0600 From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: RE: [AML] (Des News) _Work & Glory_ Movie 7.4 mill? Who knows? Personally, I think they're gonna lose their shirts. The film will do well in the LDS market, but there's no evidence the LDS market is that big. Outside the LDS market, I can't see this film doing anything but tanking. =3D20 As to whether or not the movie works, hey, I thought Charly was a gruesomely bad book, and I didn't think the movie was half bad. I had some quibbles, but overall, it was okay. I think The Manchurian Candidate is pretty bad fiction, and a great movie. I also love the novel The Hours, and was real underwhelmed by the flick. So I think it's real premature to speculate regarding the success of a movie that hasn't been made yet. =3D20 Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 13:33:35 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] Supporting Mormon Movies - ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Tom Matkin" > D. Michael says: > > > > Nobody's complaining about entertaining or "low-brow" art. We're=20 > > complaining about bad art. > > I think we have universal license to complain about bad art. We just=20 > will never be able to agree on what it is! Some of the worst things=20 > I've ever seen or experienced are widely appreciated by others. And=20 > then there's that stuff that's so bad it's good, possibly for all the=20 > wrong or completely unintended reasons, but good, or even great,=20 > nonetheless. And finally my own perception of what is good and what is > bad has been fickle to me as I have gone along. (Aside: isn't getting=20 > old a rather high price to pay for maturity?) So go ahead and complain > long and loudly about bad art if you want, but you are mostly just=20 > expressing your opinion. Tom, you've hit the nail right on the head! What we express on this list is opinion. Opinions are like belly buttons, we all have one but they are hardly ever going to change the world, it's just nice that we have one, that it is something we have in common, and that we take time to consider it once in awhile. Whether it's an innie or an outie makes no difference it is nice to know we all have a universal trait that identifies us as part of humanity. I even wrote a 2000 + word essay about the significance of our navels, to which I received many positive and some negative comments and reviews about. It is perfectly alright that our opinions are different, even diametrically opposed at times. Isn't that what makes life interesting? Just think how boring it would be if we never had any disagreement about our art, politics, or religion. Our difference of opinion is what keeps this list alive, and what keeps our hearts beating. Take for instance Toms remark about age and maturity. I used to think I was getting pretty old and crusty. (I was born after the depression but before the war) Recently I have been called to teach the priesthood lessons at the local healthcare facility for geriatric patients and people who are no longer able to care for themselves. By the way, I love it and it has opened my eyes to a whole new perspective on life. Now I feel like I'm still a kid, and I appreciate all my faculties and abilities. This is what serving people who have reached their eighties, nineties, and are close to a hundred will do for you. Or working with people who have had massive strokes or terrible accidents which have left them without the use of their limbs or mentally incapacitated. Now I do not take my mental or physical capacity for granted anymore and I remember to be grateful for it every day. Regards, Bill Willson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:20:00 -0600 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Ownership of Writing Unfortunately, Jennifer, you cannot copyright an idea. Your initial question, "When does your work become YOURS" is easy. It becomes yours the moment you DO THE WORK. In other words, if you WRITE a book, the text of the book is yours the moment it comes out of your head and onto the page. If you have an IDEA for a book, that idea might be shared by a thousand people, and there is no way you can claim it was "yours" until you do something about it and do it. Of course, a sample chapter is under copyright, and if there are EXACT QUOTES from your sample chapter which you sent to DB in the book on the subject they ultimately published, then you might have a case for theft. But they almost certainly did NOT steal from you, they just published somebody else's book with the same idea, which is not something you can copyright or protect, or claim as exclusive intellectual property. Also, on a slightly different subject. You should not take a rejection letter at face value. If a publisher sends you a rejection letter, there is truly no way to know why they REALLY rejected you. Almost always, the language in the letter is a euphemism for "this just isn't up to our standards" or something like that, but they say it in a nicer way. If a publisher tells you they aren't interested in the subject, and then a year or so later they do publish something in that subject, several things might have happened. One, they really were not interested in a particular subject in year X, but by the next year Y, they suddenly are interested. Things can change pretty fast in the publishing world. Two, they are always interested in OUTSTANDING works in your subject, but they just don't think yours IS, so they send you a letter saying we are not interested in the subject, when really (sadly) they are not interested in YOU. Boo-hoo, but a rejection is a hard thing for whatever reason. One thing you will hear over and over and over when talking to editors/publishers. Writers are always asking the vague (and frankly ridiculous) question, "Are you interested in a book about XYZ?" And the answer is always the same, or some variation of the same answer. "We are always interested in OUTSTANDING books on any subject." Even if they never publish your subject, they just MIGHT if its really outstanding. Of course, if they truly, truly never publish anything in your subject, have a policy against it, then you are querying the wrong publisher and have not done your homework. But basically, folks, publishers are always looking for great stuff. Do your homework, make your work great, keep beating on doors. Opinions change, editors change, publishing trends change; if your work is truly excellent, and you keep putting it out there, you WILL ultimately match up your work with the right publisher. So: There is no such thing as theft of an idea. Publishing "pretty much your book, only not your book" does not exist, legally speaking. Furthermore, it does not exist, literally speaking. You don't HAVE a book. You have an idea and a sample chapter. The day somebody publishes your exact sample chapter inside their book, then you have a case. Otherwise, chalk it up to life experience and keep writing! Jongiorgi Enos - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jennifer Vaughn" To: Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 3:34 PM Subject: [AML] Ownership of Writing > Hi all you AML'ers, > Stepping out of the cave of lurkdom and shading my eyes from the=20 > bright light of the AML sun, I have a question for you, especially those involved in publishing: > > When does your work become YOUR work? I ask because a few years ago I sent to Deseret Book a couple of chapters of my proposed book, a table of contents, and a proposal letter (?) about a book I wanted to write about understanding mental illness, especially from an LDS perspective (some of you might remember me querying the List re: whether you thought such a book would fly). Deseret Book hung onto my submission for about nine months, then I received a nice letter from Sherry Dew stating that DB was not interested in publishing this topic. Nothing about my writing style, etc. Just that they didn't think they were interested because they didn't think there was an audience for it. No problem, I thought. I then got busy with life (work, baby, etc.). Now I find that DB did publish pretty much my book, except not my book and by a different author (they seemed to use exactly my idea, though). What do you think? Is this theft? > > Thanks, > Jennifer Breinholt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #181 ******************************