From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #95 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 Friday, July 7 2000 Volume 01 : Number 095 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 01:14:58 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] What Can AML-List Do for Me? Rachel Ann Nunes wrote: > ...for the past few months (or more), I've been discouraged with the negative view of > the popular Mormon literature that is being published today, coupled with > the obvious lack of reading that same literature. > ...I think that most of the novels > being published for the Mormon market must have at least one redeeming > feature, and while it's important to know why something doesn't work (in the > literary sense), it is equally important to know what does work. > I have to wonder why more *best-selling* Mormon authors (best-selling > defined as at least five or six thousand copies in the first few months of > release) aren't participating on the AML. Are they just too busy? Or are > they leery of the constant criticism that doesn't seem to be pointing them > in any direction? > It may be that those who feel the way I do simply don't have time to post. > Or they're afraid of being marked as an infidel. As one of the people who have complained about LDS literature, I think I'm in a position to say this--sort of like only Nixon could go to China. For people to have their tastes lie in strongly literary directions is not a problem. To go beyond that and belittle all other forms of literature is inexcusable arrogance. If a book is popular, it _must_ be doing something right, and that something is a good something. That book is communicating with human beings on a level they're ready to listen to. To belittle the book is to belittle the people to whom it speaks. Belittling people is not a good habit to acquire. It's reasonable to lament that few people like literary writing, therefore little of it exists, therefore I can't read as much of it as I would like. But to take the next step and say there's something wrong with all those people because they refuse to like the things I like is unjustifiable by any reasonable moral code. If people won't buy literary writing, then publishers won't publish it and authors can't sell it. That's called real life. To this day the universe has refused to bend to my will no matter how loud I whine, not since I lived at home with mommy anyway. If you want to read more literary books, more need to be published. For more to be published, more people need to want to read them. To this day I have never managed to pursuade a human being to align his attitude with mine by attacking or belittling him. If we want LDS people to develop more "discriminating" tastes in LDS literature (i.e., to think more like me) then we need to accept reality and use tactics that are actually effective, not just self-gratifying. We need a "How to Win Friends and Influence People" strategy. I suspect that strategy would involve some kind of incremental approach: writing slightly more literary books that still "speak to the masses," then slightly more, and slightly more. Face it--we're never going to entice regular people to read literary books by trying to sell them on "literary." We need to entice them with carrots they already like, and throw in a little clandestine literariness so they can gradually acquire a taste for it. Pleasant, gradual exposure is the only tactic that is likely to work. But there's nothing pleasant about being told you're an idiot for liking the books you like so shape up. - -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 07:39:09 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: Re: [AML] What Can AML-List Do for Me? Thom Duncan wrote: > >Rachel, neither you, I, nor anyone else currently reading this list will >write the Great Mormon Novel (GMN). That is, we may write it but we >will never know about it in this life. What makes the Great Mormon >Novel will be the passage of time. Several generations yet unborn will >have to read this work and enjoy it for such a thing to come to pass. >Not only that, but several different ages of people in that same >generation will have to read it and like it, adult and young people. >History and history alone decides the Greatness of any work of art. This is a fallacy. If history and history alone decides the greatness of a work of art, then why, until recently (the last 20-30 yrs) were all the "great" works of art written by white male authors? And I don't mean women and minority authors started writing well in the last 20-30 yrs, I mean there were books by these authors that weren't considered great until 20-30 yrs ago. Kate Chopin's _The Awakening_ is a perfect example. It was written around the turn of the century (19th to 20th, that is), but wasn't decidedly "great" until recently. The same can be said for works by African Americans, Native Americans, etc.--they existed in practical oblivion, but later became great. How? The fact is, people construct the canons of "great" literature. And these people are not the general public, but mainly the scholars and critics that you scorn when you say: >Chasing the illusive literay critic has never made sense to me. I would >much rather be a successful author with a loyal fan base who enjoyed >consistent sales and have literary critic hate my guts. The person who >reads your work and enjoys it -- that is the most important thing. >Being hailed by critics, though perhaps pleasing to the Natural Man in >us all, is so fleeting an enjoyment. I see working hard to be the kind >of writer who can sell DESPITE what the critics may say as a larger >accomplishment. Stephen King, for instance, could type up the phone book >and it would sell, regardless of what any critic might ever say. Yes, but will Stephen King be around later, if the critics and those who create curriculums at high schools and universities don't think his work is any good? Now, I don't completely disagree with the notion that we shouldn't write _to_ the critics. Writing _to_ anyone, IMO, can compromise artistic integrity. But that goes likewise for writing _to_ an audience and making deliberate efforts to form a "substantial fan base." IMO we have to adopt Faulkner's attitude, when he put all readers and critics and editors behind a door and refused to listen to them, and said, "Now I can write." With that, he produced _The Sound and the Fury_--which was not a commercial success, nor was it an immediate critical success. But it has come to be known (thanks to later critics and scholars) as one of the greatest American novels ever written. That's what we have to do: write what's in us. Forget about the critics? Okay. Yes. But forget about the fans, too. Just write. Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 08:25:48 -0700 From: "lynn gardner" Subject: RE: [AML] Best Novel Results (Andrew's Poll) Thank you, thank you, Andrew, for instigating the thoughtful posts that evolved from this poll. I'm now armed with a marvelous list of must-read novels and new ideas for improvement of my own. Lynn Gardner - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 10:18:49 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: Re: [AML] Andrew's Poll The title of Doug's book is _Summerfire_. Rachel Ann Nunes wrote: > For instance, in one of Doug > Thayer's novels (I can't remember the title now), two young boys are sent > off to a ranch to be cowhands for the summer. I was appalled. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:06:38 -0600 From: "Rachel Ann Nunes" Subject: Re: [AML] What Can AML-List Do for Me? Thank you for your comments Ed. Tell me, is your book of humorous essays also at Barnes & Noble (not just their on-line store)? I'm doing a booksigning there tonight in Orem and while I'm twiddling my thumbs, a humorous essay or two could come in very handy. Rachel ________________________________ Rachel Ann Nunes Author of the best-selling novel To Love and to Promise E-mail: rachel@ranunes.com Web page: http://www.ranunes.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: (No, or invalid, date.) From: "Marilyn & William Brown" Subject: [AML] YOUNG, _I Am Jane_ (Performances) INFORMATION about I AM JANE. It will run this weekend: Friday, Saturday,= Monday and Tuesday at 7:30 p.m. at the Villa Playhouse Theatre at 254 = S. Main in Springville. I was so thrilled to see the generous review it = received and a grade of B plus! Congratulations, Margaret! It was absolut= ely packed Monday night, so call 489-3088 for reservations. You can give = your credit card number. Tickets are $6 for kids under twelve, $7 for stu= dents and seniors (students include college) and $8 for general admission= . You will get your money's worth, believe me! Marilyn Brown [MOD: Let me whine just one more time about those of us who live far from Utah and miss out on these things...] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 02:04:53 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Audience for Mormon Literature? Bill Willson wrote: > As far as what rank and file Mormon authors write, from the LDS > POV, I think it should be written with the same intent as the > books I have cited above [scriptures]. That is they should be written by > Mormons for the whole world, with the intent and purpose of > drawing readers into a state of mind, where they have a desire > to visit the place we are coming from intellectually and > spiritually. > > Maybe my views are a bit too idealistic, but that is the aim and > goal I have set for myself. I think it is very selfish of us to > presume we are only to write for the enlightened few, and keep > our light hidden under a bushel basket. You sound like you are recommending the other extreme: "only" writing for the world. As a group, we ought to write for everyone, just like we ought to be as concerned about fellowshipping existing members so they don't drop away as we are about converting non-members. Some of us will be more interested in writing to fellow Mormons, others to the world, still others to both groups. To have set your personal goal to sharing with the world is fine, wonderful. But we members would like to have literature written for us too. The world has room for all kinds of literature just like it has room for all kinds of people. - -- 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 http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: (No, or invalid, date.) From: "Marilyn & William Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Andrew's Poll Richard Johnson said: "I printed out three pages of names of novels . . = . I am grateful for the whole idea and for the booklist that I received." I agree with Richard. It was so much fun just to read the list of books = published in the last ten years! Thank you, Andrew, and those brave enoug= h to nominate) (I have to admit I began reading Margaret Young again, and= thoroughly enjoyed it.) I'm giving my relief society a little evening = about reading (of course none of them have time to read, but oh well) and= I'm going to use this list as a springboard. The lady who asked me to = offer this little speech said, "Don't even mention LDS literature. We all= know it isn't any good." So I'm going to convert and bear my testimony! = And I can see that with all this list activity and the exciting comments = made about the quality of our present literature, that the next ten years= is going to be amazing! Marilyn Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 12:16:24 -0600 From: "Bill Willson" Subject: Re: [AML] AAR Agents in Utah? This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BFE80D.2B833060 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [AML] AAR Agents in Utah?Thanks Todd I do not doubt your information at all. I find your answer not only = discouraging but sad. Hasn't any of these literary movers and shakers = heard about global communications, and the Internet? Why would anyone = prefer to stay in New York to work in an industry in which the day to = day business could be conducted from just about anywhere?=20 I would find it very difficult to trust my Mss to anyone who preferred = New York to just about anywhere, except LA, in the west. Oh well this is = just one person's opinion. Se la vie! Regards, Bill Willson Keep your hand moving and your muse alive. bwillson@mtwest.net=20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Todd Robert Petersen=20 To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [AML] AAR Agents in Utah? Bill,=20 the answer as to why AAR doesn't list agents in Utah is simple and a = bit discouraging. Most agents in America work out of New York. There = are a few in LA, Denver, Seattle, Chicago, and Boston, but not many. =20 Most agents out west are very specalized. For access to the big = houses, a New York agent is pretty much necessary. And you can't get = any international coverage without a New York agent. It is the center = of things, really since only small houses exist outside of Manhattan. Todd Robert Petersen - ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BFE80D.2B833060 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [AML] AAR Agents in Utah?
Thanks Todd

I do not doubt your information at all. I find your answer not only=20 discouraging but sad. Hasn't any of these literary movers and shakers = heard=20 about global communications, and the Internet? Why would anyone prefer = to stay=20 in New York to work in an industry in which the day to day business = could be=20 conducted from just about anywhere?

I would find it very difficult to trust my Mss to = anyone who=20 preferred New York to just about anywhere, except LA, in the west. Oh = well this=20 is just one person's opinion. Se la vie!

Regards,
Bill Willson
Keep your hand moving and = your muse=20 alive.
bwillson@mtwest.net =

 

 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Todd Robert=20 Petersen
To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com =
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 = 8:57=20 PM
Subject: Re: [AML] AAR Agents = in=20 Utah?

Bill,

the answer as to why AAR doesn't list = agents in=20 Utah is simple and a bit discouraging.  Most agents in America = work out=20 of New York.  There are a few in LA, Denver, Seattle, Chicago, = and=20 Boston, but not many.  

Most agents out west are very = specalized.=20  For access to the big houses, a New York agent is pretty much = necessary.=20  And you can't get any international coverage without a New York = agent.=20  It is the center of things, really since only small houses exist = outside=20 of Manhattan.

Todd Robert = Petersen
- ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BFE80D.2B833060-- - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 13:10:39 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: Re: [AML] YOUNG, _I Am Jane_ (Performances) Thanks for this info, Marilyn. We don't subscribe to any newspaper, so I haven't seen a review. The information I've received is that we've already pre-sold about 100 tickets for each of the remaining performances, so if any of you want to see it, you really should reserve. For those of you who live out of town, we are taking the show to Chicago, if that helps anyone. We'll perform it at Curie High School on July 29. Monday's performance was our best yet. [MOD: Chicago--only six hours away. Sigh...] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:57:49 -0600 From: "Alan Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Andrew's Poll >Rachel Ann Nunes wrote: > >> For instance, in one of Doug >> Thayer's novels (Summerfire), two young boys are sent >> off to a ranch to be cowhands for the summer. I was appalled. I would like to tackle the most benign of Rachel's comments, living on what most people would call a ranch. Either she received the negative impressions of ranch life from the Thayer book, or personal experience, or perhaps from the culture. In any case, I would have to agree she has the right to be appalled. On a ranch they herd animals about as if they were cattle. And the animals deficate where-ever and when-ever they want to--not the kind of training young boys need. Barbwire causes wounds that actually bleed! And all cowhands have a word of wisdom problem and swear and walk bow-legged. No-sir-ee. Young men should spend their time picking up girls in the malls--where they belong. I think Jackie O Kennedy showed the proper way to deal with youth when she sent the young Jon-Jon to a Wyoming ranch in the summers. And we all know what an good example he turned out to be, by George. Alan Mitchell - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 13:28:21 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: [AML] Reading Group (was: Andrew's Poll) On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:00:24 JST, Andrew Hall wrote: >To which Lynn added, "I'd love to see the vote extended for six months,=20 >giving people time to read those listed. Then it would be wonderful to=20 >discuss the books." > >Sure, if you'd like. That would kind of combine the poll with the = Celestial=20 >Reading Corner that was held on the list a couple of years ago. Someone= =20 >would pick a book or play, and the list members discussed it on line. I= =20 >seem to remember that there wasn't a lot of participation in the reading= =20 >group back then, however, except for when it was a play that was posted = on=20 >the web site for everyone to read for free. In any case, that goes = beyond=20 >what I'm doing, someone else would need to volunteer to run the reading=20 >group. I don't remember if this was the same reading group--I kind of think it wasn't--but the one I remember from a few years ago was associated with AML-list but not moderated by it. Jacob and I had joined AML-list just before the next book was announced; it was _Bethlehem Road_ by Anne = Perry, there was quite a bit of discussion (I thought), and then no more books = were announced and it sort of disappeared. I enjoyed both the reading group and our play discussions, though it's = true that the last play we read didn't generate a lot of discussion. I = hesitate to volunteer to lead another online reading group, because having just = had a baby I can't tell how much free time I'm going to have or even how much sleep I will be getting in the next few months. (Though the number of = books I read never seems to drop just after I've had a baby; this says = something about my priorities, I'm sure.) But I wonder--the list has gained a = large number of new members recently; is there once again an interest in = reading and discussing Mormon lit online? I know I would be interested. What = say ye all? Melissa Proffitt (who might be persuaded to run such a group, if Jacob doesn't stop her) =20 - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 11:36:39 PDT From: "Jason Steed" Subject: [AML] Genre (was: What Can AML-List Do for Me?) Edgar Snow wrote: >Rachel, thank you for your observations on our >treatment of LDS popular literature. I think you're >right; there should be a serious discussion about >popular Mormon fiction, including romance fiction, and >perhaps you're the one to start it. > >If it hadn't been for Mark Twain, humor, my genre, >would likely never be viewed as an object of serious >study or worthy of critical acclaim (as infrequent as >that may be). Of course, Twain was more than just a >humorist, and I think perhaps that's the point. > >When I write humor, I realize only my mother will view >it as great literature. I don't expect critics to pay >much attention to it. >I would like to see a discussion of Mormon humor and >other popular Mormon literature genres by critics who >understand the boundaries of these genres and who can >write about whether they work within those boundaries >(not "limitations"). Genre literature should be viewed >the way poetry is viewed with respect to its own >conventions of meter, rhyme, etc. An Elizabethan >sonnet should not be criticized for not being free >verse. Rachel, I think this is what you are asking >for. Only by appreciating successful works within >those boundaries will anyone know if they have been >transended. I just can't let this discussion of "genre" (here and in other posts) go by without chipping in my two bits. :) Edgar mentions that Twain 'survives' because he was "more than a humorist." I agree with this, and I assume Edgar means to imply that Twain is not perceived as "merely" a humorist, but as a generally "great" literary figure. Other humorists, like S.J. Perelman or James Thurber (just to name two that I'm familiar with), on the other hand, survive predominantly as "merely" humorists, among those who read and/or study humor. The same can be said of other "genre" writers. (It is important to point out that ALL writing is of a genre, even though we most often use the term perjoratively, as in "genre fiction," the implication being that this is not wholly, solidly "fiction," but some inferior subset.) E.A. Poe, for instance, does not survive as "merely" a horror writer, while chances are Dean Koontz will remain as such; and H.G. Wells or Aldous Huxley seem to transcend the realm of "merely" science fiction, while many others don't. I think it's important to acknowledge a major reason for the perjorative use of the term "genre fiction," which I think explains why it is often not taken seriously. Generally speaking, most "genres" (romance, western, SF, horror, etc.) are susceptible to formulaic structures, stereotypical characters or scenarios, and an overabundance of cliches. PLEASE NOTE: I personally believe that "genre" fiction is a perfectly valid and worthwhile endeavor--as potentially legitimate and meaningful and valuable as "literary" fiction. This post is not an attack on "genre" fiction. It also must be noted that so-called "mainstream" or "literary" (or, shall I use the oxymoron and say, "non-genre") fiction can be susceptible to these same pitfalls. The difference--if I may speculate, and please disagree with me, as this is a from-the-hip speculation and may very well be significantly flawed--the difference, perhaps, is in audience. The general fan of "romance fiction," for example, is a fan of the genre _because_ the genre provides certain things regularly--so, the repitition of those things (formulaic plots, et al), is not perceived as a negative thing. Same goes for the other genres. Yes, creativity--something "new"--is admired and lauded, but overall, certain conventions must be upheld, or the work ceases to be of the genre. To be a great SF novel, the book must still be classifiably SF. In this way, IMO, "genre" fiction runs the greater risk of susceptibility to such things as are listed above. For the "literary" crowd (fortunately or unfortunately), these things (formulaic plot, et al) are looked down upon. (This is ironic, of course, because formulaic plots and stereotypical characters/scenarios still exist, en masse.) The key, IMO, is that the "literary" genre--though it has its conventions, of course--is less limiting. It is not hard to write a GOOD non-Western (it can be so many other things and still be GOOD); but it is very hard to write a GOOD non-literary novel--because the fact that it is GOOD makes it a candidate for being classified as "literary," while this is not enough to classify it as "Western." (Edgar refers to the 'limitations' of a genre as 'boundaries'--a subtle, and not altogether meaningful distinction, IMO. How does a 'boundary' differ, meaningfully, from a 'limitation'?) Thus, "genre fiction"--because it runs a greater risk of incorporating things that are considered "bad" by the "literary" audience (a risk that is inherent in the way the genre is constructed)--is more susceptible to criticism--or at least more susceptible to being relegated to the realms of the perjoratively labeled "genre fiction," as opposed to just plain "fiction"--than "mainstream" or "literary" or "non-genre" (or "just plain") fiction. Does this make sense? Again, I'm shooting a bit from the hip, and I want to stress that I do not personally harbor a prejudice against "genre fiction." Many of the books I admire (for their "literary" merits) might be classifiably Western, or fantasy, or romance. And clearly there is just as much (maybe more) "pulp" being written in "mainstream" fiction as there is in any "genre." My question is, for those who DO write what might be classifiable as "genre fiction": How DO you toe the line and make what you write "new" and "original" while maintaining those elements necessary to the genre? It seems to me that this is a greater challenge for "genre" writers than for "mainstream" blokes like myself. And it also must be noted that all that I'm saying is said from the presupposition that a writer WANTS to be "new" or "original," or to 'survive' as more than "merely" a "genre" writer. It is perfectly possible (and perfectly acceptable) for a writer to WANT to be formulaic, and to be known as "strictly" (instead of "merely") a "genre" writer. There is a lot of money in this, and writers like Danielle Steele and John Grisham are, I'm sure, perfectly happy with churning out one formulaic, "genre" book after another and raking in the dough. But I've gone on long enough--did anybody read the whole post? Jason ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 14:13:11 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: Re: [AML] PERRY, _Tathea_ I've been waiting for my review to appear in _Irreantum_ before beginning any sort of discussion of _Tathea_, mainly because...hmm. I don't = remember why. It seemed a little too close to cross-posting the review (something Jonathan addressed recently) and I suppose I wanted _Irreantum_ to have first crack at it. That said, I am interested in seeing how many of you have read _Tathea_ = and what your reactions were, good or bad. Anyone else want to chime in? On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 10:10:05 -0500, Darlene Young wrote: >Proffitt feels that Tathea fails because it fails as >fantasy. In his response, Eliason does not completely >refute her assertion. So what if it doesn't conform >to specific rules of fantasy? Neither do >"Frankenstein," "1984," "Brave New World" and >"Utopia." But, Eliason goes on, it may not actually >belong to the fantasy genre. "It fits much better in >the philosophical/moral-treatise-in-story-form genre >of books which occasionally have fantasy elements but >are not fantasy per se." He cites Bach's "Jonathon >Livingston Seagull" and Mandino's "Richest Man in >Babylon" as examples of this genre. My greatest disagreement with Eric's review (and he's not alone in = thinking this way) is with the idea that _Tathea_ is not strictly fantasy and = should not be held to the same requirements. It's true that _Tathea_ is a philosophical treatise; this is the only way in which I think it = succeeds. But it is UNIVERSALLY being shelved, in bookstores and libraries, in the science fiction/fantasy section. This is not true of any of the other = books cited by Eric. The store positioning of a book is a reflection of how a book is being marketed to the readers. In other words, regardless of = what _Tathea_ actually *is*, it's being *sold* as fantasy, and most readers = will come to it expecting to find a fantasy. From the research I did, it was clear that those readers were the ones most disappointed--they were = judging it against other fantasy epics and not _Jonathan Livingston Seagull_. Because of this positioning, in my opinion it is entirely legitimate to judge _Tathea_ on the basis of its fulfilling the demands of the fantasy genre. And it's not just that bookstores are making the decision to put _Tathea_= in the fantasy section. This is what Perry chose--not to become a fantasy author, not to "write a fantasy novel," but to write a book that was nevertheless overtly fantastical in tone. What I find strange is that, = as a writer of historical mysteries, Perry must know how important it is to = get the details right so she doesn't have rabid fans writing letters about everything she got wrong in her last book. That this was, to her, = primarily a labor of love and an expression of testimony doesn't convince me that = she didn't need to do her homework. Yes, I am more or less a fantasy snob. I read a *lot* of fantasy and = have been doing critical analysis of same for almost as long as I've been studying literature--not terribly long, and certainly without benefit of credentials, but still. So it irks me to read books that display a lack = of understanding of the basic requirements of this genre. As long as Perry = was going to all the trouble of writing a huge novel surrounding her philosophical foundation, why not put in a little more effort and really make it a good fantasy--or even just a good story? Because to give Perry credit, she has done a fantastic job of transmuting peculiarly Mormon doctrine into a nonspecific fictional religion without waxing heretical. The philosophical aspect of this book really is good. But the story (or,= if you want to be more pessimistic, the lack of story) gets in the way of = that core element. And I found that disappointing. Melissa Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 13:28:21 -0600 From: Melissa Proffitt Subject: [AML] Reading Group (was: Andrew's Poll) On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:00:24 JST, Andrew Hall wrote: >To which Lynn added, "I'd love to see the vote extended for six months,=20 >giving people time to read those listed. Then it would be wonderful to=20 >discuss the books." > >Sure, if you'd like. That would kind of combine the poll with the = Celestial=20 >Reading Corner that was held on the list a couple of years ago. Someone= =20 >would pick a book or play, and the list members discussed it on line. I= =20 >seem to remember that there wasn't a lot of participation in the reading= =20 >group back then, however, except for when it was a play that was posted = on=20 >the web site for everyone to read for free. In any case, that goes = beyond=20 >what I'm doing, someone else would need to volunteer to run the reading=20 >group. I don't remember if this was the same reading group--I kind of think it wasn't--but the one I remember from a few years ago was associated with AML-list but not moderated by it. Jacob and I had joined AML-list just before the next book was announced; it was _Bethlehem Road_ by Anne = Perry, there was quite a bit of discussion (I thought), and then no more books = were announced and it sort of disappeared. I enjoyed both the reading group and our play discussions, though it's = true that the last play we read didn't generate a lot of discussion. I = hesitate to volunteer to lead another online reading group, because having just = had a baby I can't tell how much free time I'm going to have or even how much sleep I will be getting in the next few months. (Though the number of = books I read never seems to drop just after I've had a baby; this says = something about my priorities, I'm sure.) But I wonder--the list has gained a = large number of new members recently; is there once again an interest in = reading and discussing Mormon lit online? I know I would be interested. What = say ye all? Melissa Proffitt (who might be persuaded to run such a group, if Jacob doesn't stop her) =20 - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 15:01:21 -0600 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: [AML] SNOW, _Of Curious Workmanship_ (was: What Can AML-List Do for Me?) On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 11:06:38 -0600 "Rachel Ann Nunes" writes: > Thank you for your comments Ed. Tell me, is your book of humorous > essays also at Barnes & Noble (not just their on-line store)? I'm doing a > booksigning there tonight in Orem and while I'm twiddling my thumbs, > a humorous essay or two could come in very handy. I saw one or two copies of Ed's book in that very store a couple of weeks ago. Once again, the price was prohibitive. Maybe I just don't get it, but when I check the price on a four-hundred page trade paperback by Anita Stansfield and find that it is the same (or less, actually) for a one-hundred page trade by Ed Snow I am a bit disheartened. I don't want to buy most of the mormon literature that is available, but if I can get a book with lots of stuff in it for 14.95, why should I be happy to buy a book with a whole lot less stuff in it for 16.95? Just 'cause it's better stuff? This is probably pretty shallow of me, but when I spend 16.95 for a book, I want it to last awhile, no matter how good it is ... it's just gotta last. 'Cause then I gotta go out and buy another book. If the thick book takes me ... oh, say, two weeks to read, and the thin one only one week, then I have to spend twice as much money to get the same amount of read. As sure as I am that I'm gonna like Ed's book, for the same amount of money I can get *two* books that I know I'm gonna like. And I'll save Ed's book for when I get a beefy residual check at a time when I'm not so desperate for food. And by that time, Ed's book will be out of print. Sorry Ed. J. Scott Bronson--The Scotted Line "World peace begins in my home" - -------------------------------------------------------- We are not the acolytes of an abstruse god. We are here to entertain--Keith Lockhart - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 15:36:32 -0600 From: "Varlo Davenport" Subject: [AML] _Wilford Woodruff: God's Fisherman_ Performance Hi All, I edited this from the press release I'm sending out, if you're in Utah and have nothing to do on the evening of the 24th, come and visit. I've been doing the show since the Vernal Temple Dedication, (1997?). In addition to several performances around the state it's also been presented twice at BYU, most recently as part of 1998's Education Week. Varlo Davenport .................... A performance of Wilford Woodruff: God's Fisherman, will be presented July 24, at 7:00 P.M. in the American Fork Amphitheater, 850 E. 700 N. Varlo Davenport stars in this one-man show about Wilford Woodruff, fourth president of the LDS church. The play takes place early in the afternoon of July 23, 1847. Wilford has settled the ailing Brigham Young down for an afternoon nap and has walked "a few rods off" so that he can talk to the audience and use his fishing rod to get some dinner. Responding to the question supposedly asked of him by the audience, "How did the son of a Yankee miller, wind up here?" he casts out answers with materials taken from Woodruff's many diaries, speeches and family lore. The piece was co-written by Tim Slover and James Arrington when they were screen writers at the BYU Motion Picture Studio. "While we were writing it, we always knew I would play the part and James would direct it," Slover said. "Writing it wasn't all that difficult, but memorizing it was the hardest thing I've ever done in my life." Both authors say that the writing of the script was made easier because Woodruff meticulously recorded his life in his diaries, missionary journals, writings and speeches. Slover said that Woodruff's journals are filled with wonderful "human touches" that bring out a sense of his personality, including his love of fishing alluded to in the show's title. Davenport, who received an MFA in acting from the Ohio State University, has taught speech, theater and film classes for USU, CEU and UVSC. He currently serves as the American Fork City Arts Council Director. The performance begins at 7:00 p.m. Tickets are $5 per person or $20 for a six person family/group ticket. Tickets are available at the American Fork Recreation Department office, 68 E. 490 N. and will also be available at the door. It is presented by the AV Productions and the American Fork Arts Council as a fund raiser for the Arts Council. If you have any questions, please call Varlo Davenport at 763-3081. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #95 *****************************