From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #248 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 Monday, February 5 2001 Volume 01 : Number 248 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:15:48 -0700 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: RE: [AML] Historical Fiction (BYU Universe) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of D. Michael > Martindale > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 12:31 AM > To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: [AML] Historical Fiction (BYU Universe) > > > > As body of LDS historical literature grows, Y professors > issue caution > > By Kathryn Dougall > > > Although the impact of historical fiction has generally > been good, authors > > must take care to make their works historically accurate, > said Richard > > Holzapfel, associate professor of church history and doctrine. > >... > > "We live in an age where pop culture must be taken > seriously. We can't be > > academic snobs," he said. "We need to encourage authors to > be historically > > accurate." > > Isn't this the wrong approach, telling authors what they have > to write? Yes, especially since he is an historian. The rules of historian and fiction writer are entirely different. > This to me is the positive result of historical fiction for > educational > purposes. Not that they present all the facts to the > audience, but that > they generate an interest so members of the audience go learn > the facts > for themselves. I think half the fun of historical fiction is > to go find > out what "really" happened. Find out where the author was > accurate, and > where he used some literary license. I did it with Shogun, with Jesus > Christ Superstar. Our family did it together after seeing > Joseph and the > Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. Someday I'll get around to > doing it with > Braveheart. I don't need to do it with Oliver Stone movies, though. > Except for the character and place names, those are totally fiction. Stone treats historyt exactly the same way that Shakespeare did. As a means to an aratistic end that may have nothing to do with really "happened." Thom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:30:21 -0800 (PST) From: Valerie Holladay Subject: RE: [AML] Historical Fiction (BYU Universe) In response to the warning about LDS historical literature" "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > Isn't this the wrong approach, telling authors what > they have to write? > Wouldn't it be better to educate the audience that > fiction, after all, > is fiction, and they shouldn't be getting their > history lessons from fiction? I remember a panel of editors at an AML conference a few years ago (I should, I put it together and then tried to tape it so we could include it in the proceedings, but the tape was absolutely indecipherable and the wonderful comments were never included in the proceedings - but it was my fault, not that of the participants, although a comment in the proceedings seemed to indicate that the panelists "couldn't be bothered." I never asked them to write up their comments. It wasn't part of the deal when they agreed to come and speak.) Anyway . . . A member of the audience asked why no one published poetry and why publishers didn't educate their audiences to like it more. I think it's easier to educate one author about audience and the ramifications of trying to publish a book about poetry, than to educate thousands of readers, and nonreaders, about the importance of poetry. Likewise, in my mind, the thought of "educating the market" what they should read and think when they read it has some similarities to teaching junior high school. Your audience isn't exactly willing, they have other things to do, and for some, their level of understanding just isn't there. It's a lot easier to educate the writer, who has a greater personal interest in learning what's real and a recognition of the need to know why it matters, as well as a desire to learn how it can be done well. Some people, unfortunately, but understandably, have other things on their mind. Valerie Holladay - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:35:27 -0800 (PST) From: Valerie Holladay Subject: Re: [AML] Michael RITCHEY, _Disoriented_ (Review) In response to Richard, who wrote: > What's wrong with everything turning out okay, > resolving all the consequences? Annette Lyon wrote: > Absolutely nothing, provided that those are the > natural consequences of the plot lines... > I'd rather have a few loose ends or even an unhappy > ending any day over one that rings false. Sure, and this is a problem we all see in popular LDS fiction. At the same time, referring back to our discussions on *God's Army*, it was interesting to see everyone's reactions to the ending. It worked fine for me and others, and others found it "contrived." Same with the blessings given in the movie and other examples. They worked for some and not for others. I'd have to conclude that those particular issues didn't both the majority of the viewers, given the the success of the movie and now the sales of the video. Valerie Holladay - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:54:39 -0800 (PST) From: Valerie Holladay Subject: Re: [AML] Duplicate Book Title Names Darvell at DHunt@cornerpub.com wrote that the title of his (current?) novel is *The Fingerprints of God,* a title also used for a new book from Horizon. > > Changing the title of my novel is just not an > > option. The story is based on the title, which is > > patterned after a poem of the same name that I > > wrote back in college in 1987. I could never > > convince myself to change the title. Anyone who has published a book, unless it's self-published, or subsidized in some way from the author, will tell you that the title - like the cover art, illustrations, and jacket or back cover copy - are all crucial marketing tools, and these in large part are decided upon by the marketing team. In a good publishing house, these people really know what they're doing, and they based their decisions on their experience with the market, not on what the author wants. If you feel that strongly about your title, either plan on self-publishing or wait until the contract is offered and issued before mentioning it, then ask them to put it in the contract. Just be aware that it may make all the difference in whether the book is published. Valerie Holladay __________________________________________________ Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:04:52 -0600 From: "Rose Green" Subject: Re: [AML] Historical Fiction (BYU Universe) I think we have to be careful about falling off the end of the spectrum in either direction. > > Although the impact of historical fiction has generally been good, > > authors must take care to make their works historically accurate, > > said Richard Holzapfel, associate professor of church history and > > doctrine. >Let the historians get the facts >straight and not depend on novelists or dramatists or poets to be a >second witness for them. Historical literature is an attempt to >understand the PEOPLE of history -- whether actual historical figures or >archetypes of a specific era -- which does not require the artist (insert >your definition here) to glue themselves to the facts. Depends on what the facts are that you are changing. A little fiddling here and there may make a better story, but I just don't think there's any excuse for shoddy research. I recently read a few books by a "Christian" author about WWII that were entertaining until I came upon some major errors (characters attempting to fly from Berlin to Prague over the Alps, repeated errors in German language, other geographical mistakes that could have been remedied by studying a map). It was very distracting and made me doubt the believability and premise of a lot of other things the author was writing about. >In order to try >to understand ourselves and others better, the writer must use her >imagination in creating characters and their inner lives... >If we have an actual representative from history with a few things we >already know about her, the real learning comes with trying to invent a >character within the known facts ... and then speculating. Which I think IS the point of writing historical fiction versus nonfiction. I can think of another historical series (this time LDS) that sticks so close to the "facts" as recorded in "history" (whatever that means) that it's boring. (To me, anyway. I can think of scores of people who would violently disagree.) If I want to read a fictionalized account of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the early pioneers, I want to get a better idea of their character. I want some life, some imagination, breathed into what they MIGHT have been like. (Like in Card's Stone Tables, or Sarah, both of which I think did a nice job with that.) If, on the other hand, the book saves all the creativity for the imaginary characters and is totally dry and lifeless on the historical ones (or situations), then I'd just as soon read accounts of my own pioneer ancestors, who were just as interesting and also real. So, I agree...on one end, anyway. Rose Green _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 15:04:38 -0700 From: Margaret Young Subject: [AML] YOUNG, _I Am Jane_ (Correction) OOPS. I got bad information on the ticket prices for _I Am Jane_. Correction: Tickets are $3.00 with BYU student I.D., $4.00 for members of the outside community, and $12.00 for a family of up to six people. Dates are as listed :Feb. 9 and 10 at 7:00 p.m. in 3220 ELWC. [Margaret Young] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:57:16 -0700 From: "Alan Mitchell" Subject: Re: [AML] Handling Agents >Margaret Young wrote: <<difficult for an agent to SELL a Mormon book wherein the author actually >seems to believe in Mormonism. It happens, but it's rare.>>> Chris Bigalow wrote: >My stance as a writer and as a person is "I believe in Mormonism but don't like it," which has all kinds of conflict both for my writing and my own real life, and which is a stance that could bring in more national readers than "I believe in Mormonism and you should too." I think Mormon writers need to find a way to explore Mormon spirituality and belief in ways that don't make people feel proselyted. I don't know if why we can't do that and write about Mormons. I've had several non-Mormons read Angel of the Danube and none felt proselyted (although Ruth Starkman didn't like the talk perceived by her to be conforming to the Mormon Church at the end--believe me, if I had realized it might be read this way I would have avoided it.) Hey, just have fun with the conflict. I think Chris left out an option, "Mormons aren't cool but they can be very real if they could quit being self righteous." Personally, I would have a hard time if it were my lot to live with the attitude of believing but not liking Mormonism. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to be dissatisfied. Jan Shipps seems to have done well with the inverse-Bigalow attitude, "I like Mormonism, but don't believe it." However, a conflicted character is a good one to write about. A clash of cultures. But does it have to be so much drugery? So much Kafka? Like Kafka, we feel like cultural bugs in a world of flyswatters. Like Kafka's Trial, we may all be arrested and charged with no crime, but let's get a little Peter and Paul going and rejoice in it. This Mormon thing is bigger than all of us. Anyway, that's my take. Alan Mitchell - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:58:41 -0600 From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] Fw: MN Little Change Among Mormon Titles on Bestseller Lists: Kent Larsen 1Feb01 A4 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ----__JNP_000_0c80.7631.5699 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Kent Larsen To: Mormon News Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:15:00 -0500 Subject: MN Little Change Among Mormon Titles on Bestseller Lists: Kent Larsen 1Feb01 A4 [From Mormon-News] Little Change Among Mormon Titles on Bestseller Lists NEW YORK, NEW YORK -- There was little change among the Mormon titles on US best seller lists this past week. In all, six titles are on the lists, with Anne Perry's Whitechapel Conspiracy dropping back off the lists, probably temporarily, replaced by Card's Ender's Game, which rejoined the list, also probably temporarily. The little change marks the slow nature of book sales this time of year. As noted in prior weeks, Steven Covey's Seven Habits has risen, while newer titles have dropped, as steady sales of a well-known title outshine more sensitive sales of newer titles. The current titles on bestseller lists are: Nothing Like it in the World, by Stephen Ambrose A history of the building of the transcontinental railroad in the US. Ambrose, a highly regarded historian, details the involvement of Mormons in building crucial portions of the road, including the driving of the "golden spike" in the heart of Mormon territory. Currently on the following bestseller lists: This Last List 26 24 Barnes & Noble (Jan 31) Top 100 13 13 BooksAMillion (Feb 1) Non-Fiction Hardcover 8 6 Booksense (Jan 29) Non-Fiction Hardcover 8 8 New York Times (Feb 4) Non-Fiction Hardcover [Independents - 7; Chains - 8] - 15 Publishers Weekly (Jan 29) Non-Fiction Hardcover 135 120 USA Today (Jan 31) 14 14 Wall Street Journal (Jan 26) Non-Fiction Hardcover 10 - Wordsworth Books (Jan 30) Non-Fiction Hardcover The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, by Stephen R. Covey This ten-year-old personal management classic is still selling strongly. Currently on the following bestseller lists: This Last List 19 16 Amazon.com (Jan 31) Non-Fiction Paperback 70 58 Amazon.com (Feb 1) Top 100 64 63 Barnes & Noble Top (Jan 31) Top 100 76 84 USA Today (Jan 31) 5 6 Wall Street Journal (Jan 26) Business Ender's Shadow, by Orson Scott Card A "parallel" novel to Card's Hugo and Nebula award-winning Ender's Game. Told from the point of view of the 'also ran' to Ender, Bean. Currently on the following bestseller lists: This Last List 17 14 Amazon.com (Jan 31) Fiction Paperback 108 87 USA Today (Jan 31) Shadow of the Hegemon, by Orson Scott Card The second novel in Card's new series about Bean, Ender's shadow. In this novel, Bean is the tactical genius who wins the Earth for Ender's brother, Peter, the Hegemon. Currently on the following bestseller lists: This Last List 3 4 Amazon.com (Jan 31) Fiction Hardcover 85 24 Amazon.com (Feb 1) Top 100 10 10 BooksAMillion (Feb 1) Non-Fiction Hardcover 8 10 Booksense (Jan 29) Fiction Hardcover 11 9 New York Times (Feb 4) Fiction Hardcover [Independents - 12; Chains - 10] - 10 Publishers Weekly (Jan 29) Fiction Hardcover 84 63 USA Today (Jan 31) 9 11 Wall Street Journal (Jan 26) Fiction Hardcover Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card The original Hugo and Nebula award-winning novel. Currently on the following bestseller lists: This Last List 23 - Amazon.com (Jan 31) Fiction Paperback Half Moon Street, by Anne Perry Perry's Inspector Thomas Pitt returns to 19th-century London for Perry's 20th novel about the detective. Currently on the following bestseller lists: This Last List 129 98 USA Today (Jan 31) The Whitechapel Conspiracy, by Anne Perry Perry's Inspector Thomas Pitt returns to 19th-century London for Perry's 20th novel about the detective. Currently on the following bestseller lists: This Last List - 36 Amazon.com (Feb 1) Top 100 >From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites without permission. Please link to our pages instead. For more information see http://www.MormonsToday.com/ Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com Put appropriate commands in body of the message: To join: subscribe mormon-news To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest - ----__JNP_000_0c80.7631.5699 Content-Type: text/html 
From Mormon-News: See footer for instructions on joining and leaving this list.
Do you have an opinion on this news item? Send your comment to letters.to.editor@MormonsToday.com

Little Change Among Mormon Titles on Bestseller Lists

NEW YORK, NEW YORK -- There was little change among the Mormon titles 
on US best seller lists this past week. In all, six titles are on the 
lists, with Anne Perry's Whitechapel Conspiracy dropping back off the 
lists, probably temporarily, replaced by Card's Ender's Game, which 
rejoined the list, also probably temporarily.

The little change marks the slow nature of book sales this time of 
year. As noted in prior weeks, Steven Covey's Seven Habits has risen, 
while newer titles have dropped, as steady sales of a well-known 
title outshine more sensitive sales of newer titles.



The current titles on bestseller lists are:


Nothing Like it in the World, by Stephen Ambrose

A history of the building of the transcontinental railroad in the US. 
Ambrose, a highly regarded historian, details the involvement of 
Mormons in building crucial portions of the road, including the 
driving of the "golden spike" in the heart of Mormon territory.

Currently on the following bestseller lists:
This  Last  List
 26    24   Barnes & Noble (Jan 31) Top 100
 13    13   BooksAMillion (Feb 1) Non-Fiction Hardcover
  8     6   Booksense  (Jan 29) Non-Fiction Hardcover
  8     8   New York Times (Feb 4) Non-Fiction Hardcover
              [Independents - 7; Chains - 8]
 -     15   Publishers Weekly (Jan 29) Non-Fiction Hardcover
135   120   USA Today (Jan 31)
 14    14   Wall Street Journal (Jan 26) Non-Fiction Hardcover
 10    -    Wordsworth Books (Jan 30) Non-Fiction Hardcover

See:


Nothing Like It In The World

 More about Stephen E. Ambrose's "Nothing Like It in the World: The Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad" at Amazon.com



The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, by Stephen R. Covey

This ten-year-old personal management classic is still selling strongly.

Currently on the following bestseller lists:
This  Last  List
 19    16   Amazon.com (Jan 31) Non-Fiction Paperback
 70    58   Amazon.com (Feb 1) Top 100
 64    63   Barnes & Noble Top (Jan 31) Top 100
 76    84   USA Today (Jan 31)
  5     6   Wall Street Journal (Jan 26) Business

See:


Seven Habits of Highly Effective People

More about Stephen R. Covey's "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" at Amazon.com



Ender's Shadow, by Orson Scott Card

A "parallel" novel to Card's Hugo and Nebula award-winning Ender's 
Game. Told from the point of view of the 'also ran' to Ender, Bean.

Currently on the following bestseller lists:
This  Last  List
 17   14    Amazon.com (Jan 31) Fiction Paperback
108   87    USA Today (Jan 31)

See:


Ender's Shadow

More about Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Shadow" at Amazon.com



Shadow of the Hegemon, by Orson Scott Card

The second novel in Card's new series about Bean, Ender's shadow. In 
this novel, Bean is the tactical genius who wins the Earth for 
Ender's brother, Peter, the Hegemon.

Currently on the following bestseller lists:
This  Last  List
  3     4   Amazon.com (Jan 31) Fiction Hardcover
 85    24   Amazon.com (Feb 1) Top 100
 10    10   BooksAMillion (Feb 1) Non-Fiction Hardcover
  8    10   Booksense  (Jan 29) Fiction Hardcover
 11     9   New York Times (Feb 4) Fiction Hardcover
              [Independents - 12; Chains - 10]
 -     10   Publishers Weekly (Jan 29) Fiction Hardcover
 84    63   USA Today (Jan 31)
  9    11   Wall Street Journal (Jan 26) Fiction Hardcover

See:


Shadow of the Hegemon

More about Orson Scott Card's "Shadow of the Hegemon" at Amazon.com



Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card

The original Hugo and Nebula award-winning novel.

Currently on the following bestseller lists:
This  Last  List
 23     -   Amazon.com (Jan 31) Fiction Paperback

See:


Ender's Game

More about Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game" at Amazon.com



Half Moon Street, by Anne Perry

Perry's Inspector Thomas Pitt returns to 19th-century London for Perry's 
20th novel about the detective.

Currently on the following bestseller lists:
This  Last  List
129    98   USA Today (Jan 31)

See:


Half Moon Street

More about Anne Perry's "Half Moon Street" at Amazon.com



The Whitechapel Conspiracy, by Anne Perry

Perry's Inspector Thomas Pitt returns to 19th-century London for Perry's 
20th novel about the detective.

Currently on the following bestseller lists:
This  Last  List
 -     36   Amazon.com (Feb 1) Top 100

See:


The Whitechapel Conspiracy

More about Anne Perry's "The Whitechapel Conspiracy" at Amazon.com






>From Mormon-News: Mormon News and Events
Forwarding is permitted as long as this footer is included
Mormon News items may not be posted to the World Wide Web sites
without permission. Please link to our pages instead.
For more information see  http://www.MormonsToday.com/

Send join and remove commands to: majordomo@MormonsToday.com
Put appropriate commands in body of the message:
To join: subscribe mormon-news
To leave: unsubscribe mormon-news
To join digest: subscribe mormon-news-digest
- ----__JNP_000_0c80.7631.5699-- - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 08:26:33 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: Re: [AML] Editing Changes Editors have no muse. Instead, our mythological prototype could be considered to be Atropos--the one of the three Fates whose job (if I recall correctly) was to cut the threads, ending life. (And if I were editing this post, it would be my job to check and make sure that it's really Atropos I'm talking about here...) With which cheery thought I shall proceed to record some more thoughts about editing and the writer-editor relationship. As always, feel free to tune out as desired. As a writer, I've never learned to enjoy being edited. To be perfectly honest, I really keep wishing for my manuscripts to come back with words like "perfect," "stunning," "excellent," "insightful"--but without any red marks whatsoever. (Actually, I prefer to use a black pencil for editing rather than a red one--it stands out more clearly for me, since I'm colorblind, and I like having the option of erasing.) I still remember how frustrated I felt (though I did my best not to show it--I don't know how successful I was) when a member of my thesis committee at BYU--a personal friend and mentor--asked for changes at my thesis defense. So I went ahead and made them. And as I made them, I discovered that the weak spots he had pointed out really did exist--and that his comments had given me the chance to strengthen those areas by adding needed connective tissue. I liked the results. But I didn't like the process. And I particularly didn't like having to go back over something I thought I was already done with. Perhaps there are some authors so mature (or perhaps the word is "masochistic") that they genuinely enjoy receiving back a hacked, slashed-up manuscript from an editor. I'm not sure I've ever encountered any such authors--and I'm positive I've never been one. The only people I've encountered who seem able to take editing comments with perfect equanamity are those who have no personal investment in seeing themselves as authors: stand-up trainers, for instance, or content experts who have to dash off a rough draft of what they know or do, and then are delighted if you can turn it into something comprehensible--but that's a rare characteristic, even among those who don't call themselves writers. The best that the rest of us can generally manage is to pretend that we're all professional, objective, smilingly willing to accept cuts and revisions even though we actually want to RIP THEIR ARMS OFF FOR DARING TO MESS WITH WHAT WE'VE WRITTEN. But we do our best to keep up the pretense, because we've learned by experience that editing often makes our own work better. And even when it doesn't, they're the ones who have to be satisfied in order for us to be published and/or paid. I think that a graceful willingness to work with editing and revisions is one of the true distinguishing marks of a professional attitude in a writer. (Not, mind you, that this is something even all the professionals have.) I think many writers, beginners especially, aren't entirely clear on what it is that's working in their writing. They're nervous about going in and changing things, because they're afraid they might "break it." Or they buy into the notion of the inspired author (inspired either by the artistic muse or by the Spirit) and are afraid they'll mar the inspiration by smoothing the edges. I can't be entirely critical of this attitude, because I've seen stories made worse by too much revision and polishing--but that's usually because the author himself or herself can't be persuaded to leave the work alone, not because of editorial interference. Or (going back to reasons why authors may be reluctant to revise), watching the story come alive under their hands, as stories will when they really take off, they feel that to change it is to mar a living thing, like amputating a limb off a child. It's true that editing and revision demands a different set of talents than the initial writing. One of these is the ability to see and evaluate alternatives--which may mean taking something that has set itself as stone in your mind, and then reliquifying it, so to speak. Not an easy thing for many people to do. But I think this ability is critical to becoming a really *good* writer, or even a competent writer. A good editor can assist in developing and exercising this ability. It's different if you encounter an editor who blindly butchers your work. I can't deny that they're out there--and, as I tried to point out in my previous post, it may be that such an editor is a bad editor for you in particular, and not necessarily for others. This is one reason why it's so important, as Christine Atkinson said, to develop a relationship of trust with your editor. You have to be sure he/she knows what you're trying to do and sympathizes with it before you can have much trust in what he/she is trying to get you to do to your manuscript. It's also important not to simply accept what an editor says uncritically, but to analyze it. Often, as an editor, I will suggest changes that, as it turns out, don't work very well. The author has to learn to become a partner in the process of revision, neither discounting the editor's comments nor simply adopting them without thinking about whether they actually work. There are, I think, two absolutes in the editing process. The author as creator of the work has authority to say whether a given change achieves what he or she wanted to achieve. And the editor, as a reader, has authority to say whether the work as written works for him or her. The entire process works better if both the author and the editor respect each other in those roles, and then work together in the large middle ground of trying to get the piece to work for the audience in a way that will make everyone happy--author and audience both. Both as an editor and as an author, I try to choose which battles I'm willing to fight--and with whom. If I have a writer whose overall command of English is pretty savvy, I'm much more likely to defer to that author in a matter of stylistic judgment than if I'm working with an author whose writing has many obvious problems. Similarly, as a writer, I try to accept any changes that I don't feel too strongly about--unless the editor suggests so many bad changes that he or she loses my trust, in which case I may get mulish about everything. (Not that I necessarily should, but being human...) I'd also like to offer a general observation about something I'll call style/usage sense. As I mentioned in my previous post, once one is out of the realm of house style and the simpler grammar/usage questions, editing isn't a matter of rules so much as sensibilities--which vary, of course, from person to person. A sense for style and what is known as "correct" grammar or usage is not something I think is learned so much as cultivated. As an editor, I see these types of problems and fix them, without thinking too much about defining precisely what the problem is--unless I need to in order to communicate with someone about them (for example, the author). I wonder to what degree that type of usage sense is innate, developed perhaps by extensive reading but building on a certain type of visual/auditory memory. There's a good deal of evidence to suggest that good spellers, for example, are born not made, with a certain type of visual memory that "sees" words and can tell if they're right or wrong--while others who may read just as widely as the good speller don't have that automatic spelling sense. (This sense can be blunted, by the way, by seeing too much poor spelling--I've noted deterioration in my own spelling of particular words after grading too many freshman papers.) I wonder if the same isn't true of much of what I'm calling style/usage sense. In any event, I'm quite sure it's not a matter of mastering a list of "rules of good writing." This is one reason why I have absolutely no faith in electronic grammar/style editors: they attempt to reduce to rules something that's essentially a matter of appropriateness and context. Well, I've maundered on again, as I warned you I would. I have to close, though, by saying that I really like writing and editing both. Writing brings a number of joys, but editing does too--the joy of helping something come out fresh, clean, lovely, with a potential that perhaps only an editor could have perceived in its original form revealed and displayed for everyone to see. I've never been a midwife, but I can't help but feel that it's a little bit like that. Not the parent, but one who plays a key role in assisting something to be born. That's what it's like at its best. And though there may be some swearing at each other along the way, in the tension and pain of the moment, still I think the best writing-editing partnerships end with an acknowledgment that the final product is a much better and healthier thing than either could have produced alone. May you have the joy of working with those types of editors, and those types of authors. Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not the List jlangfor@pressenter.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 00:28:30 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Handling Agents Christopher Bigelow wrote: > My stance as a writer and as a person is "I believe in Mormonism but don't like it," which has all kinds of conflict both for my writing and my own real life, and which is a stance that could bring in more national readers than "I believe in Mormonism and you should too." I think Mormon writers need to find a way to explore Mormon spirituality and belief in ways that don't make people feel proselyted. It's possible to both throw bones to those who want to continue disbelieving and provide insights and thought triggers to those who aren't completely skeptical. Instead of having to take some level of negativity toward the church, whether it includes dibelief or not, how about if we don't proselyte simply by--not proselyting. Another way of describing that is: be honest. No matter how much you believe in and love Mormonism, you have to be dishonest to claim it and everyone in it is perfect. Just be honest. Just tell your Mormon story. You don't have to throw bones at disbelievers. Just tell it like it is, the positive with the negative, and ignore the possible reaction of Sister Grundy down the block who thinks scriptures and church publications are the only proper things to read. If you're honest, only those with their own bone to pick will complain. And since they already have a bone, you don't have to throw them one. - -- 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 ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #248 ******************************