From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #378 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 Saturday, June 30 2001 Volume 01 : Number 378 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 03:00:47 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher Levi Peterson wrote: > > My take on a midstream Mormon publisher is that the General Authorities and > the great mass of church members who take their advice on all matters would > quickly identify it as disloyal. We may need to take Hugh Nibley's approach. We need to make our loyalty ao obvious and unassailable that our arrows of cultural criticism don't sting so much. - -- 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, 29 Jun 2001 08:47:44 -0700 From: "Frank Maxwell" Subject: Re: [AML] Dutcher Joseph Smith Project Back in May, Thom responded to William's and D. Michael's thoughts on cinematizing the First Vision: > "D. Michael Martindale" wrote: > > > > William Morris wrote: > > > > > I think that if I was making the film, I would leave > > > the first vision and the translation of the Book of > > > Mormon alone---I mean, they'd get referenced somehow > > > to set up the opening of the film, but I'd do the bulk > > > of the film from, say, Zion's camp to the martyrdom. > > > I just thing that that part of the story is too iconic > > > to deal with easily. I'm not saying that it's 'too > > > sacred' and shouldn't be portrayed for propriety's > > > sake or anything like that. Perhaps it's because I > > > think that that period of Joseph's life is too firmly > > > pre-conceived in people's minds. > > > > I'm just the opposite. I'd rather concentrate on the beginnings, the > > iconic stories, precisely because people have firmly preconceived > > notions about them. I'd like to make them less iconic and remind people > > that they were real events that really happened. Which probably means > > people would accuse me of treating them irreverently, because I didn't > > depict them "iconically." > > In my never-to-be-produced screenplay on Joseph Smith, I battled over > this exact thing until ultimately settling on portraying the First > Vision (though not the standard one; my scene depicted the earlier > accounts of the Vision with angels -- there was no Father and Son saying > "Do not join other churches." -- I felt this was historically accurate > because all the evidence shows a gradual unfolding of the significance > of the Vision. Joseph didn't walk out of the Sacred Grove at the age of > 14 with a complete understanding of the nature of God and of other > churches, despite what we teach as missionaries.) Since my script's > audience all along had been the general public, I struggled with how to > make the Joseph Smith story appealing to non-members. Seeing Malcolm X, > where Malcolm has a very matter of fact vision of his religions founder > convinced me that the best way to do such scenes for non-members is just > to do them. > There are advantages and disadvantages to the approach you suggest, Thom, of filming the earlier accounts of the First Vision. One advantage is that it would seem "fresh", since it would be different than the Church-produced film of "The First Vision" which is based solely on Joseph's 1838 account in "History of the Church" (now included as Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price.) ("Freshness" and "originality" being qualities that we artists want our works to have.) However, the disadvantage of your way of dramatizing the First Vision would be that some people would construe it as disproving or devaluing the 1838 account. They would say that you didn't dramatize the 1838 account because it is less accurate than the others (even though it's longer and more detailed). They would construe it as having dramatized their alternative version of Joseph Smith's story: that he only saw angels, and that he later made up the stuff about seeing Deity. I think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of being "fresh". I don't understand what you mean by saying "the evidence shows a gradual unfolding of the significance of the Vision." Yes, the later accounts are longer and more detailed. But the fact that not all the details were immediately written down doesn't prove that those details weren't part of the original experience. I would suggest 2 other ways to cinematize the First Vision: 1. Dramatize the Vision in a way which includes details from all of Joseph's written accounts (none of which contradict each other, by the way). James Arrington did this orally for a conference of the Mormon History Association years ago, when they met in the Kirtland Temple. I think his "combined" account of the First Vision was published in Dialogue. This version would include both Deities, and angels, and everything else that Joseph described. 2. Dramatize each of his accounts in flashback format, but in a way that tantalizes the audience into wanting to see the next flashback. For instance, start off when he's writing down in his personal journal his earliest account of the Vision, the one in which he writes that Jesus told him that he is forgiven of his sins.* Then show a quick flashback of that part of the Vision experience. Then let the movie go forward with other parts of Joseph's life until it chronologically gets to the point where he wrote or told his next account of the vision. Then show more. By the time the movie gets to 1838, the audience would be intensely interested in what really happened back there in that sacred grove. This approach would show the essential unity of Joseph's Vision experience, at the same time acknowledging that he wrote down what happened only a little bit at a time. * A photograph of this page of Joseph's journal, showing in his own handwriting that Jesus forgave his sins, was included in the original edition of "The Story of the Latter-day Saints" by James Allen and Glen Leonard. I was moved when I first saw it. Regards, Frank Maxwell - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:48:57 -0600 From: "Paris ANDERSON" Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher Paris Anderson parisander@freeport.com wrote: Wow--I've been trying to get on this liist for a week and what I finally get on--boom--the first message is about small time publishing . . . THAT'S MY GIG, MAN! That's what I do! I'm a stay-at-home dad and a massage therapist, and in my free time (which isn't nearly enough) I print and hand-bind (hardcover) my own stuff.. With a hardcover the finished product is too expensive to sell in bookstores, but you can docutech the books and have them done in a soft cover with a perfect bind--just like most books in a bookstore. I'm doing a children's chapter book about the Mormon Battalion that way, It's coming out this summer (Thank heaven for credit cards). I noticed Chris Bigelow was looking for volunteers to work on that proposed Irreantum Books. I'll do it. I don't think I could do more than one title a year (I am dyslexic and that slows me down a lot). But I'll do my best. One big advantage to hand binding is that you can see the book before you actually go to press. You can also have a copy or two for archives or private collections. You can use them for pre-marketing or display. I'm excited about the prospect. Paris Anderson - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:51:16 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] GAs in Church Pubs >Does anyone really think, for instance, that "I > Believe in Christ" would have ever seen the inside of the LDS hymnbook > if it hadn't been written by Bruce R. McConkie? > > Thom (waiting for people to respond by saying they love the hymn. That > isn't the point. It's still maudlin verse) Duncan I'm going to say that I like the hymn - I don't consider it great poetry, or even art. There are hymns with better lyrics, and there are hymns with worse lyrics - it's really in the middle as far as that standard goes. But I consider it a fairly decent outpouring of love and respect for Christ that coems across as almsot spontaneous and worth more because of its artlessness. (Now - the music that was written for it needs to be changed, I will agree. One of the most bland melodies and harmonies in the hymnbook. But that's my opinion, and the hymnbook wasn't created with me specifically in mind. I rather enjoy 95% of the hymnbook, even if I wish there was more variety). - --Ivan Wolfe - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:22:48 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Sex in Literature Hi guys. I'm back, and you're talking about my favorite subject. I've been lurking. PROPER SEX, as Michael Martindale puts it, is my favorite subject, and I'm WAY discouraged. O'Reilly, the conservative guy on FOX, just comes right out and says "We can't preach." And of course, that's right. NOBODY is listening. We can't tell them not to have it. Because Michael is right. It IS FUN. There are also 26 more diseases people can get from it, not to mention Aids, and the habits we have of focusing on sex instead of the REALLY IMPORTANT things that help our lives to be joyful and last a long time. Oh well, I say to myself, Babylon had the same problem and look what finally happened to them. I liked what Michael said about "confront" it. That's the ticket. I think our "romance" writers ARE trying to confront it, don't you think? How are they doing? I don't think we are completely lacking in "telling stories that include sex as an integral part." But alas! I'm not sure we can turn the minds of these hot teenagers much. Anybody have any suggestions? Maybe it's not literature, anyway. (P.S. I'm glad to be back, and I had a wonderful time in Boston--our daughter bought a lovely old 1915 mansion on the waterfront! And I was also THRILLED that Richard Cracroft and Andrew Hall mentioned our book done by the Indian fellow, which I helped through the publication process! Thanks for all you do, Andrew! And Richard too!) Marilyn Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:23:21 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] _Peculiarities_ Tonight? I saw an ad that said Eric Samuelsen's play _Peculiarities_ was playing now at UVSC's Black Box theater, but when I called the number they didn't know anything about it. Does anyone know if this play is being staged, and if so when and where? - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:45:49 -0600 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher Hi, Chris! I'm back, and I've been lurking. Thanks, Chris, for mentioning my little Salt Press! One reason I joined up with Cedar Fort is that there are SO MANY DETAILS to publishing--details that I'd just as soon have someone else spend time and money on: advertising, printing, mailing, billing, etc. My feeling about the whole thing is to get better product through a press like Cedar Fort. They are very open and amenable. They are good people! (Thanks to Andrew Hall for the comment about the Native American fellow's novel! Yes, we worked hard on it!) Why not take the operation that already exists and run with it? Do we really need another LDS publisher? Or can we use Evans Books, or Cornerstone, or Aspen, or Cedar Fort and develop them? There are a lot of people who start up publishing companies because they want to do it their way. They either want to "express themselves" or make a lot of money. It's not that easy. (Ask Richard Hopkins.) Salt Press? I haven't seen one red cent yet. (By the way, as an aside, when I got home my funny mother-in-law who wrote the FABULOUS book I CANNOT TELL A LIFE died just when I got home. That was Salt Press's first book (that Lavina Anderson and Harlow Clark read--did anyone else see it?) and I nearly got sued. But it was WONDERFUL, I promise! (Two readers do not a reading public make.) So absolutely no money for me. Hopefully that will change. I am THRILLED to be with Cedar Fort, and they have given me the go ahead--that anything I feel is literary quality I can do with the Salt Press label. We almost did a book of short stories by Todd Peterson, except that I was in the middle of too much to give it the attention it needed and I told him to try again on the national market. I felt sad. Cedar Fort can't sell short stories. The economics of the thing definitely RULES! You have to watch it so that you don't lose your shirt! How much good are you going to do sitting out there in the dirt with no shirt, getting sunburned? Hopefully you can see the wisdom in BUILDING UP some struggling entity rather than feeling "it's got to be your way." You are all talented and brilliant. I would LOVE to see your stuff at Salt Press, 925 N. Main, Springville, Utah. The God's Army press might be the answer, also, but they will soon buck up against the market, too, and start rejecting literary work! Anyway, keep trying! (Nice to be back) Marilyn Brown - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 12:20:59 -0500 From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Where to Advertise? D. Michael Martindale wrote: > I understand the mindset that says advertising shouldn't appear in a > church-sponsored magazine. But that mindset seems to carry with it the > sense that commerce is a sordid thing.... One might be tempted to argue, why should > we help businesses get rich off church members? I have no objection to advertising. I love advertising. It keeps some of my favorite publications free, it tells me where I can find goods and services and at what price, it amuses and titillates me, and it tells me how I can find joy in my refrigerator and romance over the phone. It's a window on culture, giving me hints of the hopes, desires and fears of whichever strange land I find myself in. It's the sole reason I watch the Superbowl. I channel surf to find good ads. Did I mention that I love advertising? Aside from molding tastes, advertising sends signals - "I exist; you can buy me in four easy installments over the phone; my quality is X." Alas, when signals contain useful information, someone will take advantage and send noise - a signal that contains spurious information. The cost is relatively low and the potential gain is large. And that's why I dislike the idea of advertising in church publications. I know the publishers are decent, well-intentioned people, but they have to navigate an informational mine-field laid by wolves. How to be certain of the accuracy of ads in your paper? How to ensure that your good name won't induce your flock of readers to trade with a commercial predator? In the world of commercial publishing, publishers typically disavow responsibility for the ads they carry. I don't think the church can so easily do that. And given the trusting nature of many Mormons, the appearance of an ad in an LDS publication will surely be seen as evidence that the advertiser is of good report. And when it happens, as it inevitably will, that the advertiser is a wicked opportunist, I suspect many LDS will feel betrayed, even seek compensation from the publisher for abbetting the fraud. I know, I know, people need to grow up. That doesn't obviate the fact that a religious publisher is subject to reputational effects that are different from those for Hurst or Murdoch. And even an organization affiliated with the church only by virtue of a primarily LDS audience will experience those effects, though not as severely (I imagine _This People_ carried ads for engagement rings and wheat grinders with some regularity). In short, I think it's a bad idea for the church to allow advertising in its publications, and I think the rest of us need to be mighty careful if we identify ourselves with the church and take ads. Jim Picht - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 12:42:29 -0600 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] Where to Advertise? On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 01:35:54AM -0600, D. Michael Martindale wrote: > What troubles me is, where is the medium of advertisement that can reach > the entire church population, now that church magazines won't do it? One > might be tempted to argue, why should we help businesses get rich off > church members? I look at it as, why shouldn't members everywhere find > out what's available to them, like some far-flung members of AML-List > have complained that they have a hard time finding out what LDS > literature is around? Because you would then offer direct competition for the Deseret Book Club. Much of the products advertised would offer some product that competes with what the church already offers through Deseret Book on the Church Distribution Center. (A cynical answer, but one I believe has more than a grain of truth -- perhaps even a whole sandbox.) Also, if the Church magazines accepted advertising, that creates the implication that the Church endorses those advertisers or products over similar companies that choose not to advertise in Church magazines. The Church could place a huge disclaimer -- "The Church does not endorse these products or companies" right on the advertising pages, but the implication still exists. Because too many saints look to the Church for the guidelines of "this is OK, this is not" instead of seeking the spirit for the guidelines for their own situation. The "dumbing-down of America" has infected the Church members as much as almost everywhere else. We want our religion spoon fed in pre-masticated servings. When something comes along that seems to challenge our worldview, we don't look for answers from within, we look to the Church leaders ask, like a three-year-old dipping his toe in the swimming pool but looking over his shoulder at mom -- but it's the looking over the shoulder that causes the boy to fall in. I have to say to myself: "We live in the last days. The scriptures tell us that many of the saints will not make it to the Celestial kingdom. I just have to do my part for myself and my family." Without this mantra, I would get really depressed. [P.S. Signing off for a week. I leave tomorrow for Pennsylvania and other points East for a short vacation.] - -- Terry L Jeffress | No book is really worth reading at the | age of ten which is not equally (and | often far more) worth reading at the age | of fifty and beyond. -- C. S. Lewis - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 13:47:49 -0500 From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] GAs in Church Pubs Thom Duncan wrote: > My cynical opinion would be, yes, [GAs] would get published even if their fiction was > dreadful. Does anyone really think, for instance, that "I Believe in Christ" would > have ever seen the inside of the LDS hymnbook if it hadn't been written by Bruce R. > McConkie? I think they'd get published, but I don't think the potential awfulness of a Faust spy novel or a Packer romance is really relevant, nor is this view cynical. People with proven audiences or drawing power get published in a commercial market. I imagine Bill Clinton and Oprah Winfrey would both have an easy time getting a novel published, however awful, simply because publishers know that there'd be a large and eager audience for them. The hymnbook is a somewhat different beast. Every ward buys them, whether they contain hymns by McConkie or not, and McConkie's hymn inclusion seems almost an example of vanity-press printing rather than the market-driven acceptance his SF trilogy would have received (had he ever finished it). The latter would actually sell, if not in the numbers of Clinton's bodice-ripper, hence wouldn't be picked up by the publisher just to make nice with a GA, but in expectation of profit. I don't see why we should be bothered by the effect of fame or notoriety (however local) on the decision to publish a new author's book. Publishing isn't about art, after all, it's about commerce, and acceptance or rejection by a publisher isn't necessarily a comment on the artistic worth of a book. Jim Picht http://vic.nsula.edu/scholars_college/picht/home.html - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 14:27:23 -0500 From: James Picht Subject: Re: [AML] Institutional Art Jacob Proffitt wrote: > That is because there is a fundamental difference between "doctrine" and > "art". While that difference is clear to me, the line between the two is not. Doctrine would be well-served by great art, and for a much larger community over a longer time than by the safe and simple art that's now preferred. I think that the evaluation of art-in-service-of-doctrine by the brethren is extremely difficult, requires judgements that they aren't always willing or able to make, hence they prefer the use of iconography - set patterns and symbols that often strike us as bland. > But art is, well, art. It isn't worth the danger of offending somebody... > The thing is, when you talk about people and the gospel, you are dealing > with eternal consequences. You can't dilute the gospel without > potentially damaging the eternal destination of the very people you want > to bring to God. You seem to forget that there's a trade-off. If bland art doesn't offend, neither does it engage, and an opportunity to present the gospel is lost. Rather than turn someone off to a particular eternal destination, you may fail to get him on it in the first place. That also ignores the fact that "safe" art may not be safe at all. There are clearly people on this list who find it at the very least irritating, if not offensive. It might be nice to do an eternal cost-benefit analysis of our homogenized art, but we can't. We can see, though, that there are costs as well as benefits, and those costs are measured, as are the benefits, in the welfare of souls. Hence the argument that follows doesn't make much sense to me: > If just one person takes that advice and the effect is to irreparably > harm their eternal progression then there is all the damage you need to > justify squelching exactly that message. Either way, there will be damage. You'll lose at least one either way, I think, so I perceive the course the church takes to be the easier one, since its costs are lower in terms of institutional decision-making. That is, since we can't measure the costs of our policy in souls, we choose to reduce more easily discerned institutional costs. Rules are easier to administer than a policy of discretion, and simpler art is more easily evaluated according to rules. I don't think we need put this in terms of lost souls at all. > Personally, I hate the effect that this reality has on some members. > Melissa had a conversation recently where her Church superior (i.e. > Primary President) actually *said* that "there must be something wrong > with fiction if the brethren removed it from the Friend." I'm afraid that > this is only the beginning of the inevitable fallout. It may be, and it illustrates the potential for offense and lost souls as a cost of the "no fiction" policy. The attitude of the Primary president is offputting to me, to say the least. I won't leave the church over it, but we all know people who might. On the other hand, a no-fiction policy is much easier to administer than a good-fiction policy. > By implementing a no fiction policy at Church magazines on the sly..., > they > imply things that they probably don't mean (that fiction is bad). I think that making the reason for the policy explicit is possible only if the brethren can articulate it to themselves. I'm not certain that they can, since most of the cost-benefit analysis we do in life is done at an intuitive level, without a clear understanding of why we do what we do, only a feeling that it's right. As you say, > But then, explaining things is hard. And dangerous. I mean, it takes > time and work to craft an explanation in the first place. It also means clarifying the issues to yourself, and we sometimes shy away from that instinctively. It is, as you say, dangerous. > Which brings me back to my first point that art isn't as important as > teaching the gospel--no matter how good or True it might be. I agree with you to a point. The tool isn't as important as the product. Art is the tool, spreading the gospel message is the product. If there are better tools than art, we should use them. But aside from direct learning through the spirit, the message is spread through words, symbols, images - elements of art, if not art itself. A better use and understanding of that tool can have a tremendous impact in getting the product out, but only with some risk. Life is a risk, and the Plan of Salvation entails enormous risk. Why should church leaders shy away from risk? Jim Picht http://vic.nsula.edu/scholars_college/picht/home.html - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 13:18:59 -0600 (MDT) From: katie@aros.net Subject: Re: [AML] Jennie HANSEN, _Macady_ (Review) I read Jeff Needle's recent review of this book with interest. I read _Macady_ a few years ago, and I remembered feeling differently about it. So I pulled out my notes that I'd made on it, and I thought it would be fun to post my own review on it. (Note to Jeff and Barbara (Hume): This is not meant to discredit your positive comments on the book!) My notes are dated March 15, 1998, and since I checked it out from the library I no longer have the book. So I don't feel that I am now qualified to comment much further than this, or to make any revisions on what I wrote, but here are the VERY hasty notes I jotted down after reading it then: I don't like horse stories (the cover shows a young woman on a horse). I don't like action-adventure. I ended up liking this one anyway. The writing is not great. It succeeds, though--it tells a story, and even makes it interesting. But the characters are all stock-romance-types--the perfect hero and heroine (who are even battling internal problems of forgiving someone they loved), loving mother, evil grandmother, etc. But the writing is disjointed; these things about trust and forgiveness are almost an aside, brought up abruptly at times and left just as fast. Sure, the issues of forgiveness, of Macady's dad leaving their "forever family" for another woman, and of Aaron's (dead) wife being selfish and immature and always running to her mother, are very real and deserve exploration. But they're just asides, and not really part of the story, except to hang over our heads in the form of "Can they ever love and trust again?" and because of this, they have trouble getting together. Also briefly mentioned is Macady's ex-fiance, Brian, who she caught cheating on her. He was mentioned three times and this is all we know. Why bother? What was the point?? Also Hansen has to keep reminding us how desirable her hero and heroine are, and they occasionally think things about each other that should have been on a greeting card. ("Macady had a knack for making everything around her a little more real, a little more vibrant" (p. 56, Aaron's POV); "The way he looked in the smartly tailored black and gray uniform made her pulse accelerate" (p. 53, Macady's POV).) I feel like I'm expected to care about these characters because they're perfect. They don't have real thoughts, except about how right it feels to brush against the other's leg, etc., or how hurt they were because of this or that experience. One overdramatic quote that drove me crazy on p. 39: <<<<< Macady cast Aaron an amused glance as Kelsey (Aaron's 4-year-old daughter) tried to decide which kitten should be her very own. His answering smile told her he approved of the gift he'd given his child and that he appreciated the avoidance of a problem with Denise. >>>>> I'm not sure exactly what bugs me about the second sentence here, but it's just so eloquent, and Macady knew the perfect thing to do, and she instantly understood the exact words his smile was telling her. She must be psychic, on top of being perfect. ******* My additional comments, June 2001: I didn't say much in my notes about what I liked in the story (griping is sometimes much more fun). But I remember that I eventually became very involved in the plot, in spite of myself. After all, the hero rescues the heroine from a sniper and a burning barn, and later there's a kidnapping and a drug ring. Also, the plot revolving around Aaron's dead wife became more interesting as we find out what a witch she really was, and how her equally witchy mother continues to try to stay involved in Aaron's life and make him miserable. Later we learn that his wife had told other people that he was cruel and abusive to her. There's a lot here (most of which I don't remember, and I wouldn't remember any of it if I hadn't written it down) and it gets pretty interesting. I just didn't like some of the writing, and I wanted to see more realistic characters with more exploration of some of the issues brought up. But I suppose this isn't the point of the story. The story isn't meant to be a character study, but an action-packed romance. If this is what you like, then I recommend it highly. What I remember of it, anyway. [Katie Parker] - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 16:15:51 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] GAs in Church Pubs The title worries me - has the church started endorsing the consumption of alchohol, since we are apparently spotting GAs in apparently church owned pubs? (I though the rumors about owning Coke and Pepsi were crazy - but the church owns pubs?) ;) - --Ivan - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 03:21:12 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher William Morris wrote: > I think the question of "are there > enough of them?" is critical. We don't really know > for sure until somebody tries. But some work on that > end has to be done before we can think about how to > reach them---especially since a big part of the whole > process is the need to convince LDS booksellers to > stock the tiles produced by a midstream publisher. It's always distribution that gets in the way of good ideas. I think we need to take a page form the Gospel According to Richard Dutcher and figure out a way to bypass the traditional distributioon channels. It's easier to drag a spaghetti noodle with than to push it ahead of you. > One of the questions that comes up for me is: how do > the hypothetical members of this new market react to > the idea of Mormon literature on an abstract level? > There's no real way to answer this question (focus > groups?), but what I'm trying to get at is: would > Mormon readers of non-Mormon fiction ever consider > buying and reading fiction by a Mormon author if it a) > matched their genre/topic interests and b) was of a > quality similar to the books they now read? I was very eager to read _Disoriented_ when it came out, specifically because it was an LDS science fiction book. So there's your existence proof of the market. > However, even that barrier can be dropped if someone > they trust constitutes it as a valid category for > them. One of the theories of institutional change is > that you find the 'opinion leaders' for that > particular institution and convince them to help you > 'sell' your message to the rest of the institution. "The Orson Scott Card Book Club of LDS Science Fiction." - -- 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 #378 ******************************