From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #384 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 Thursday, July 5 2001 Volume 01 : Number 384 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 17:38:19 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: Re: [AML] Humor-Themed _Irreantum_ At 09:57 PM 6/25/01, you wrote: >Oh dear. My poems are not meant to be *funny.* I hope no one tries to read >them that way or they'll think my attempts at humor are pretty pitiful! > >Sharlee Glenn >glennsj@inet-1.com Some of my poetry is funny (or I hope it is), but this particular one ("Resurrected Spring"), isn't either. Don't worry. Linda Adams Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://home.sprintmail.com/~adamszoo - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:37:54 -0600 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: [AML] LDS Publishers vs. National Publishers Amelia Parkin (by the way, any relation to Scott?) wrote: "Why would any author who is good enough to have his work published in the "outside" publishing world come to a Mormon publisher who will make him remove four-letter words, anything resembling explicit sex, and other things not nearly as bad as these (like the word "pee", to use an example posted to the list)? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be willing to watch my work be adulterated that way. Stylistic suggestions and grammar corrections are one thing; watering down my reality in order to make it palatable is another. I'd rather publish with an "outside" firm who would let me represent the reality I see." Assuming that they would. I had a couple of interesting experiences with national publishers when I was sending around my YA novel manuscript (since published by Bookcraft as _Circle Dance_). After I sent the manuscript to Simon & Schuster, I got back a letter stating that while the editor "very much enjoyed" the book and thought that my characters were "distinct and credible," she, ultimately, could not take the novel on because she was (and I'm quoting directly from the letter here) "concerned that the story might reinforce some cultural prejudices regarding Native Americans and alcoholism." I wrote back and said that the last thing I wanted to do was perpetuate erroneous stereotypes of Native Americans. In fact, one of the major themes my story concerns itself with is the debunking of such sterotypes. "On the other hand," I wrote, "I did not attempt to gloss over the very real problem of alcoholism among the Ute Indians." I then proceeded to provide statistics (gathered from Indian Health Services) showing that the rate of alcohol-related deaths among Native Americans is well over *five times* that of the national rate and that nearly *half* of the deaths of Indian people are traceable in some way to alcohol. I ended by saying that I grew up on the Uintah-Ouray Reservation and saw, first-hand, the devastating effects of this disease. "Alcoholism among Native Americans," I concluded, "is a very real problem, and pretending that it doesn't exist--either in life or in literature--won't make it go away." I wish I could say that this impassioned rebuttal changed the editor's mind and convinced her to take on the book, but, of course, it didn't. The reality I saw and attempted to portray was not, in this case, acceptable because it was not politically correct. (From the articles I've read, it sounds like Brady Udall is facing similar criticism with regard to his _The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint_). Here's another example: A prominent NY publishing house was very interested in this same manuscript, but wanted me to take out all the "Mormon stuff." Now, if you've read _Circle Dance_, you know that it does not in any way "preach" Mormonism. It does, however, have a Mormon setting (it takes place in Utah--on the Uintah-Ouray Indian reservation to be exact) and it is peopled with Mormon characters whose culture and religion obviously color their world-view. Taking out the "Mormon stuff", then, would have been virtually impossible. I would have had to scrap the whole book. So, back to your original question: "Why would any author who is good enough to have his work published in the "outside" publishing world come to a Mormon publisher . . .?" Perhaps because only a Mormon publisher allows for certain realities to be represented at all. This is changing, I think. But slowly, and with great resistance in some corners. Still, the fact remains that many New York publishers simply aren't interested in what some of us want to write about--our Mormonism. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 16:46:28 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: Re: [AML] Literary LCD At 12:51 PM 6/30/01 -0700, you wrote: >Perhaps if Mormon literature is to become truly mature, it should stop >looking inward at its own emotional and psychological troubles, and start >looking outward at the world that surrounds it. Hear hear! One Mormon novel I read (I don't remember who wrote it, so apologies if it's yours) had a woman dying of cancer. She still had young children. Her sister came to stay to help take care of the kids and other things so the young husband could continue working and bringing in an income. As the novel progressed, the wife died and the sister stayed to help. Then she and the husband found themselves becoming attracted to each other--strongly attracted. I liked this book in part because it did have substance. It showed that the husband and wife's faith helped them deal with pain and grief and the sorrow of separation--real trials that the gospel does not eliminate from life. And I liked the fact that the the surviving adults were portrayed as having actual sexual feelings--the kind that real people have--yet were shown as not giving in to them because their standards were real to them and they intended to live those standards. The Mormon characters were flesh-and-blood characters, not plaster saints, and they struggled and eventually conquered. I liked reading a book that showed that you don't have to have sex just because you really really want to and really really care for the other person. I like the idea of putting that idea out there for people to think about. I remember the shocked reaction I got from a gentleman I was dating - --- years ago: "What do you mean, no? Nobody says no!" He actually believed that. How sad that he was unaware that one does have a choice other than acting the natural man. Presenting the reality of a scenario in which people don't let the world tell them how to behave is a worthwhile goal for a moral writer, IMO. But the characters need to have enough substance for the readers to be able to relate to them. barbara hume - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:57:53 -0700 From: Jerry Tyner Subject: [AML] Readers on AML-List (was: Electronic Publishing) Renato, No you are not the only reader (I have never tried to write outside of school reports years ago). I am an avid reader (mainly Sci Fi (Card fan especially) and Fantasy with some adventure thrown in. Unfortunately = the adventure out there right now doesn't conform well to LDS standards = except for Card and a few other. The reason I joined this list was so I could familiarize myself with the artists who were LDS so I knew who I could trust. Jerry Tyner - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 12:29:28 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] BofM Movie Themes (was: Testament) (comp) >From skperry@mac.com Mon Jul 02 17:35:23 2001 on 7/2/01 5:03 PM, Travis Manning (by way of Jonathan Langford ) at manning_travis@hotmail.com wrote: > or, > "Ammon and his Amazing Sword." Somebody stop me! Or, or, I'll just stop > myself. I guess we have the "Hill Cumorah Pageant" and the "Manti Pageant" > and other manner of pageants that depict BoM characters, but let's see some > plays/musicals/screenplays that really develop the characters of these men > and women of the BoM. Develp the characters? Then you would actually NOT being using "Joseph and the Etc." as an example, right? Steve [Perry] - ------------------------------------------ >From margaret_young@byu.edu Mon Jul 02 17:50:52 2001 But remember, if you miss the Book of Mormon characters on the Big Screen, you can buy the little action figures at your local "Missionary Emporium" and invent your OWN script! You can have Laman or Lemuel say, "You know, Nephi, I am getting a little tired of getting electrocuted by you. I wish we hadn't even stopped at that "magic tricks" store on our way to Laban's place. (Sorry. I know this may be too much for Jonathan to print.) [Margaret Young] - -------------------------------------- >From glennsj@inet-1.com Tue Jul 03 14:08:05 2001 Travis Manning wrote: > For all you playwrights and musical-ites (and all other manner of artistic > "ites") out there: We've got "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" > making it on and off Broadway . . . but what about "Nephi and His Amazing > Journey to America?" Or, "Alma the Younger and his Brush with Death," or, > "Ammon and his Amazing Sword." Somebody stop me! Or, or, I'll just stop Or how about "Ammon and His Disarming Disposition"? :-) Sharlee Glenn - ------------------------------------- - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 12:29:09 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: Sex in Literature (comp) >From KGrant100@aol.com Mon Jul 02 17:30:16 2001 Marilyn Brown writes, > > 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. > Marilyn, Could you clarify what you meant when you said, "I'm not sure we can turn the minds of these hot teenagers much"? This is a topic I'm very interested in, as YW counselor working with the Mia Maids. The girls seem to be simulaneously interested in and a little embarrassed by talk of physical intimacy, and they definitely have some distorted ideas they've assimilated from the current cultural climate. But they also love good stories--I'm finding that's a wonderful way to reach them. Kathy [Grant] - -------------------------------------- >From dmichael@wwno.com Tue Jul 03 01:53:34 2001 OmahaMom@aol.com wrote: > But one of the > most powerful books I've read in LDS fiction dealt with an extramarital > affair. Things can be done tastefully. But it takes care. I'm curious what is tasteful about an extramarital affair. This is the point that bothers me (not that I'm assuming you pesonally think this way--just springboarding from your message). Bean-counting morality, I call it. Never mind that the message of a PG-rated film is, "Sex is fun! Let's do it with whomever we want!" As long as there is no swearing or nudity or on-screen sex in it, we're fine. The most notable recent case-in-point is the movie "Titanic." When people in Utah County bought their copy, they went to the company that edits videos for you and cut that nasty nude scene out--you know, the one where she poses nude so he can sketch her--the one with NO sex. But the actual sex scene--done very tastefully, I might add--no problem! There's no nudity there. Nothing was shown. It was all off screen, but for the hand on the steamy window. And what moral message does that scene teach our kids? If you're in love, go ahead and have sex. It's nice, it's wonderful, it's romantic. As far as we know, that nasty fiance of hers was waiting for marriage to have sex with her, but he's the bad guy. Good guy Leonardo doesn't have to wait. And wasn't it sweet that they got to have sex before he went off and died? It just wouldn't have been true love if they hadn't had sex. (I think it's very telling that the instant the sex was taken care of, the iceberg appeared and we could get on with the disaster portion.) Give me the nonsexual nude scene over that message any day--please! D. Michael Martindale - ---------------------------------------- >From REWIGHT@telusplanet.net Wed Jul 04 00:35:10 2001 > I'm convinced this situation exists because Mormons deep down _do_ > believe sex is dirty, although they may not admit it, even to > themselves. And I think that's awful. I refuse to cater to the attitude. I guess you don't know my R.S. friends. Anna Wight - ------------------------------------------ >From grant@math.byu.edu Wed Jul 04 15:58:25 2001 Amelia Parkin writes: [...] >I am also looking for the lattitude to create a work of art >which may depict a "sinful" sexual encounter (rather than >just allude to it in passing) with enough detail that the >reader can understand the simultaneity of joy and sorrow >experienced because of sin (and, no, I am not talking about >pleasure or passing happiness and sorrow; I'm talking about >JOY and sorrow). Why did you put scare quotes around the word "sinful"? As for wanting to tell a story conveying the notion that there is joy in sin, it seems to me that there are few ideas more likely to alienate the General Authorities and those who value their opinions. Chris Grant - ------------------------------------------- >From ditread@juno.com Thu Jul 05 10:03:03 2001 On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 03:52:06 -0600 "D. Michael Martindale" writes: > If we remain silent about sex, we > allow the message of the world to dominate. If we don't depict sex in our > literature according to our understanding of it, we lose by default > to the world. My personal concern, and perhaps Jeffrey's as well, isn't the topic of sex itself but the reason for and the manner of *depicting* it. That's where "lowering the bar" can occur if we don't use great care. *How* should sex be handled in LDS literature? I believe that is between each individual author/artist/film producer and the Lord. I personally don't believe it's necessary to follow characters into a bedroom, whether they're legally married or not, either to depict sex as it should be, or the consequences of it's misuse. That, to me, is voyeurism, and a cheap, worldly cop-out. I believe both the righteous and unrighteous use of sex can be demonstrated through the characters' interactions with one another in non-sexual settings, through their dialogue and behaviors. I think the bottom line is, what is our motivation for depicting sex? Is it truly to uplift others, to increase their understanding and appreciation for this sacred aspect of our lives? Or is it merely to titillate, to compete with worldly entertainments? That, I think, is the core issue. Diann T. Read - --------------------------------------- >From reid9@midwest.net Thu Jul 05 11:03:31 2001 I just finished reading Dean Koontz' book - Darkfall. I particularly wanted to read something in this genre to compare the pacing in a book I'm working on. Although there were a couple of slow spots - I found the book riveting. They alluded to sex a couple of times and there was a sex scene that lasted a couple of paragraphs. But, nothing I would call graphic. And the whole message of the story was that an honorable man could conquer evil. So, IMHO, if your writing is good - and your story is good - then you'll sell your book. If it's not - no amount of sex or graphic violence is going to sell it. We (the reading public) might be fooled once - but you won't be a repeat bestseller unless you have some respect for the people you are telling your story to. (I hate it when I end with a preposition.) Terri Terri Reid Executive Producer - Midwest Region PIXELight www.itpnow.com - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 12:30:26 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Writing About "Good" Mormons (comp) >From lauramaery@writerspost.com Tue Jul 03 11:39:45 2001 >> I write about bad people and try to help the audience *understand* them. > >Well that's fine. But what's wrong with writing about good people. They're >interesting too. I can think of no fictional character about whom that is true. The Arthurian myth, for example, creates deeply good people who are interesting only when they commit sin. Isn't this the fundamental "problem" with Mormon literature? That characters are interesting only when they err? Our missionary-minded culture recoils at the thought of portraying faithful people as flawed; doing so might, after all, damage our larger obligation to share the good news of the gospel with the world. And how can the gospel be "good news" if faithful, devout Saints are licentious pigs? Our obligation to be missionaries means we're self-limited to making all of our faithful characters "without sin". . .and that -- in practice -- makes all our fiction cloyingly boring. So rather than fight it (by, for example, concocting fictional inoffensive sins, or by telling our intended audience that they're not allowed to be offended our literature), I'd propose we embrace it. P'haps someone here could propose a scenario in which a fictional "good person" does something that is good, believable, and interesting? I am unable to formulate any possibilities. - --lauramaery (Gold) Post - -------------------------------------- >From jerry.tyner@qlogic.com Tue Jul 03 17:32:20 2001 - -----Original Message----- From: Kellene Adams [mailto:kelleneadams@earthlink.net] Okay, I have to ask (although it may just be redundant because it sort of ties into 90 percent of all the lines we have going on AML, so if it's redundant, please ignore the question): Why does writing about good Mormons have to be boring and sappy? Kellene, You have a powerful point here. The thing that gets left out many times when people write are the trials and struggles we all experience in one form or another. Why do we think reality based TV (such as it is) is so popular right now. It is because the world likes to see people overcome adversity (even if it is gross sometime - okay most of the time in those shows). The problem is most people edit out the struggles. It is the struggles that make it interesting and make people want to overcome their own trials and adversity. Jerry Tyner - ---------------------------------------- >From REWIGHT@telusplanet.net Wed Jul 04 00:35:03 2001 > > But why do the stories of good Mormons have to be boring and sappy just > because their view of life may be basis and simple? (Okay, now I'll just sit > back and prepare for the onslaught. . . . I'm cringing as I push the send > button) > > Kellene No argument from me. I think good people are interesting. The stories that stay with us are about good people. Little Women, Wizard of Oz, Anne of Green Gables, Oliver Twist, It's A Wonderful Life. Even A Christmas Carol. Sure it focuses on a bad character, but with all the goodness around him, he changed. It's easy to write about bad people. This and this happened to them so now they go and do dispicable things. It's more interesting to see how people rise above the bad stuff that happens. Anna Wight - ------------------------------------ >From dmichael@wwno.com Wed Jul 04 03:52:04 2001 Writing about good Mormons does not have to be sappy and boring--in fact shouldn't be. (As you pegged it, in the wrong hands, it can be.) The problem, again, is balance. For some time all we seemed to get was the trivial, sappy stuff. "Enough!" many of us said. So we started emphasizing more substantial, more gritty stories. The unending supply of sappy was about as reflective of genuine LDS life as "The Donna Reed Show" was about American life. We just want honest. Honest can include light, simple stories. Just not exclusively. When my former elders quorum president's daughter got involved in the methamphetamine culture, and is still, years later, trying to extricate herself from that, the last thing she needs is a story about whether to kiss on the first date. Where have the stories been that might help her? Finally, finally, they are starting to appear, but it's been a long time coming, and many members of the church still resist that trend--still question the integrity of the authors who are writing them. Shameful to not allow a girl struggling for her life to have stories that might reach her! D. Michael Martindale - -------------------------------------------- >From manning_travis@hotmail.com Wed Jul 04 20:03:13 2001 Marilyn Brown wrote: > >Brady writes: "It's high time somebody out there, if not me, wrote about >Mormons in a real and honest way." > >I haven't read the book, but I can guess. And it really scares me. You >CAN'T >write about the good Mormons. It's boring and sappy. So the question is >WHAT'S REAL? Marilyn, you CAN write about "good" Mormons: fiction may not be as exciting, but what about biographies, historical fiction, non-fiction sorts of texts? Travis K. Manning - --------------------------------------------------- - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:10:26 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) From: Amelia Parkin Subject: [AML] re: Writing About "Good" Mormons Below is what Kellene Adams wrote about writing about good Mormons in literature. I would like to foreground what I think is the central issue at hand. Kellene asks why it is that writing about "good Mormons" has to be boring and sappy. She goes on to tell the story of some "good Mormons" who have experienced plenty of problems. So here's my question: why is it that we continue to insist on breaking Mormons up into categories like "good," "faithful," "bad," "unrepresentative"? To do so is ridiculous. What exactly is a good Mormon? Who can even begin to define that? Why is it frightening (now I'm referring to Marilyn Brown's post) to think of what Udall's Mormons are like simply because we know they aren't "good"? It's time to stop perpetuating a fantasy about what it means to be a "good Mormon" or a "bad Mormon". It's time to simply recognize that Mormons, like everyone else on earth, suffer from problems. This is where I think at root the "good Mormon/bad Mormon" classification comes in. I think that most of us really mean to say that someone is a "good Mormon" or a "bad Mormon" because of the way in which they handle the problems they experience (of course, why we feel the compulsion to use such classifications at all is another topic that we could discuss at length; we shouldn't use them at all but we continue to do so). But somewhere along the line we have elided the humanity of the problems and end up with the notion that "good Mormons" experience problems the way a hurdler experiences hurdles: obstacles along the way that, with the help of the gospel are cleared. We end up with an empty concept of both the "good Mormon" and the "problems" they experience. That image boils down to the notion that Mormons may have problems but they also have faith and faith almost negates the problem. An all-purpose cure. If we have faith the problems go away. and "good Mormon" becomes equated with "problem free because faithful." (A disclaimer: I am in no way suggesting that faith will not solve problems; only that it's more complicated than that.) I know most people would balk at my statements. I can hear people saying that they do NOT believe that Mormons don't have problems. But that's not what I'm talking about. I know that most members of the Church recognize that other members experience problems. But in addition to understanding that reality, most of them also hold onto an ideal image of what it is to be a good Mormon and unfortunately that ideal image somehow cannot include struggles with normal problems. We don't need literature that reinforces that idea. We need literature that exposes the falseness of that idea. It's what both of my posts on sex in literature addressed. We need some reality in our literature, not a fantasy that we continue to insist is a reality. Of course reality includes the entire range of everything from Mormons who experience problems and fall away because of it or Mormons who experience problems and struggle their entire life with them or Mormons who experience problems and through reliance upon the Church/gospel are able to resolve them. Good Mormons, bad Mormons, faithful Mormons, unrepresentative Mormons. We are all all of those things, every one of us. We need to find the moral strength of character to be able to admit it. Laying claim to a false but better image of what we are does not strengthen us--it deludes us and places us on a moral high ground from which we look down not only on others but even on ourselves. We bifurcate ourselves between the false "righteous" position we assume because we feel we should be in it (often assumed because we have a strange notion that if we say we are something it is easier to become that something) and our real position. So yeah, writing about "good Mormons" in one sense--the "good Mormons" of our fantasies--would be incredibly dull and even dangerous because it fails to represent reality. But there's nothing at all boring or sappy about truly good Mormons, the ones who struggle but continue to try to use Gospel principles in their struggle. Or the good Mormons whose struggle has to do not with things external to the Church but things internal to the Church and accordingly walk away from it. Shocking right? that I would suggest that there are good Mormons who have distanced themselves in any way from the Church. But it happens. And we need to be willing to recognize it. But now I am beginning to move from one soapbox to another so I will stop. My simple answer to Kellene's question: it's not boring to write about good Mormons; it's boring to write about fake Mormons. I was wrong; I have one more thing to say. What I wrote above is a call for realism. I don't only endorse realism. I have no problem with fantasy or with warping reality for artistic ends. In fact, some of my favorite works of literature include magical realism and science fiction and fantasy. The problem I see with the kind of fantasy that I'm talking about above (fantastical notions of goodness in Mormonism) is that what it accomplishes is not widening our horizons or enabling us to travel beyond the confines of our own experience, which fantasy usually allows. Rather it narrows our horizons making only one way a viable option. I see it as essentially more destructive than constructive. okay, I've had my say. amelia parkin On Mon, 02 Jul 2001 17:05:40 -0600 Kellene Adams wrote: > Okay, I have to ask: Does > > > > > I haven't read the book, but I can guess. And it really scares me. You CAN'T > > write about the good Mormons. It's boring and sappy. So the question is > > WHAT'S REAL? Marilyn Brown > > Okay, I have to ask (although it may just be redundant because it sort of > ties into 90 percent of all the lines we have going on AML, so if it's > redundant, please ignore the question): Why does writing about good Mormons > have to be boring and sappy? > > I know a terribly good Mormon couple, married almost 40 years, dealt with > lifelong chronic depression, a five-year bout with prescription drug abuse, > one daughter who had a son out of wedlock, one son who had to get married, > one son who is inactive, one son killed in a car accident, and on top of > that, they are not the best two personality matches in the world (he's a > control freak and she's a submissive, '50s, "leave it to Beaver" mother > figure and marching into the '90s created havoc in their marriage as she > began to discover that there was more to life than her little young > children, who were no longer children, and he discovered that his strong > personality actually crushed her more than helped her). However, the very > foundation of their lives is their commitment to the gospel and their belief > that somehow working through all that life has thrown them will be > worthwhile in the end, and that working through it based on a strong belief > in Jesus Christ is the best (and really only) way to work through it. > > To me there is nothing boring and sappy about their story at all. (Okay, > maybe it could get a little sappy in the wrong hands because their absolute > commitment/love is kind of inspiring. . . . ) > > But why do the stories of good Mormons have to be boring and sappy just > because their view of life may be basis and simple? (Okay, now I'll just sit > back and prepare for the onslaught. . . . I'm cringing as I push the send > button) > > Kellene > > > - > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 12:33:14 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] re: Magazine for Mormon Women (comp) >From debbro@voyager.net Tue Jul 03 14:15:42 2001 Yeah! What she said! You know, it could be done in .pdf which would give a choice of reading it on-line or printing out a hard copy. Just a thought. Debbie Brown - ----- Original Message ----- > I think there's room for several different types of church magazines. = > Not necessarily put out by the church. [large snip] > > Anna Wight=20 - -------------------------------------- >From debbro@voyager.net Tue Jul 03 14:54:48 2001 hey! here's a suggested title for the magazine _Modern Mormon Millie_ sorry, couldn't resist. Must be the fever. Debbie Brown - ----------------------------------------- >From adamszoo@sprintmail.com Tue Jul 03 15:26:39 2001 A magazine like this would sell to Christian women everywhere (probably MOST women everywhere, so long as the Church element was not overwhelming) who are not interested in the insipid shallowness of current women's magazines. It could be marketed nationally. Think how refreshing it would be to read articles on accepting our looks rather than trying to be impossibly thin and cellulite-free. Whenever I pick up a national women's magazine--usually only in a doctor's office--the slant and content only depresses me. (Nevermind that there's probably some inherent evil at work teaching us to hate ourselves if we don't look like THAT, if we don't dress like THAT we're not worthy of notice, and so on.) There are other kinds of women out there than those these articles are geared toward, who refuse to buy into that mindset. I'm one of them. Come to think of it, _Country Woman_ is more like what's described below, but is very much geared to the, well, rural-dwelling female. They include recipes for the venison and pheasant brought home over hunting season and such, gardening and agricultural articles. If I remember correctly, you do have to subscribe to contribute. Something like that, only geared for more a more generic women's population, with LDS emphasis, would be wonderful. I haven't heard a better idea yet. I'll do a column. :-) Linda Adams - --------------------------------------------- >From jerry.tyner@qlogic.com Tue Jul 03 16:43:06 2001 I think this is an outstanding idea. I know an LDS men's magazine wouldn't be as popular but there is a lot to be said for those invisible members (men and women) of each Ward and Stake who spend their time with the Primary and Young Women or Young Men and do not get the regular lessons and fellowship of Priesthood and Relief Society. Besides, there is a lot to be said for magazines which reflect an LDS standard. I know I would buy it. Anna - You may not have the resources yourself (nor do I with a son leaving on a mission) but someone may run with this. It is a great idea. Jerry Tyner - --------------------------------------------- >From sammiejustesen@msn.com Tue Jul 03 20:57:41 2001 Anna, I like your idea. Not only would the magazine appeal to LDS women, we could share subscriptions with our non-Mormon friends. The only magazine I know that comes close to this is Country Woman ( www.countrywoman.com) It's without ads and mostly composed of essay, poetry, and photos by readers. They feature a different state each month, and many of my LDS friends subscribe to it because it's so wholesome. In fact, their husbands also read it. The LDS magazine you spoke of could feature women from a different country with each issue. Keep thinking! Sammie Justesen sammiejustesen@msn.com The Writers Roost www.thewritersroost.com - ---------------------------------------------- - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 12:33:33 -0500 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Electronic Publishing (comp) >From PARISANDER@freeport.com Mon Jul 02 20:20:30 2001 Alphagraphics is a lot cheaper. Paris Anderson - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thom Duncan" > > No need to go that far. Alexander's here in Orem can do POD but you have > to provide the ISBN and the color cover. - --------------------------------------- >From wwbrown@burgoyne.com Tue Jul 03 10:10:08 2001 Ken Merrill is using Cedar Fort to distribute LANDLORD. (I couldn't read it, but I'm going to soon.) Maybe the IRREANTUM PRESS could align itself with a distributor? Cedar Fort might be interested. Marilyn Brown - ---------------------------------------- - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 17:58:56 -0500 From: "thomasb5" Subject: Re: [AML] GAs in Church Pubs I understand what you meant. :-) Just wanted to make sure that I had not slipped into an alternate reality. Rick T - ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Picht" To: Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 6:24 PM Subject: Re: [AML] GAs in Church Pubs > > If I understood you correctly, McConkie was working on a SF trilogy? What > > is the history behind this? > > Oh dear. I really need to be more careful about saying things like that. I > don't know whether BRM was at all interested in reading SF, let alone writing > it, but the image of him working on something of the sort so amused me, and the > idea that we'd never be able to tell that he _wasn't_ working on it seemed so > pregnant with possibility, I decided to write as if unknowable reality fit my > mental picture of it. Perhaps my deliberate perception of that reality could > collapse the universal wave function and make it so. The only history behind > this is my own warped sense of humor. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 23:24:21 -0500 From: Larry Jackson Subject: [AML] re: _Testament_ Eric D. Snider: I'll go see it, and I'll write about it, and then we'll all be sorry. _______________ Now hold on a minute. I do not anticipate being sorry at all for anything you may write. I have enough of my own sorrows. I will not accept any from you, no matter how generous you may be feeling. The only reason I might feel sorry is if I thought you were not going to write honestly. And if that is going to be the case, then don't go see it and don't write about it. Send me a plane ticket. I'll see it and I'll write about it. :-> Larry Jackson ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 00:05:36 -0500 From: "REWIGHT" Subject: Re: [AML] Midstream Mormon Publisher I would love to help out. But do you want people who don't live in Utah? Or even in the States? Anna Wight - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 02:41:03 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Where to Advertise? Terry L Jeffress wrote: > 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. I seem to have left the impression with several people that I was gearing up for a campaign to get advertisements back in the church magazines. That will never happen, and I don't have any desire to get it to happen. I just want to know--where do we advertise now? - -- 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: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 01:00:40 -0500 From: Ronn Blankenship Subject: [AML] Steeds (was: Fiction in Church Mags) At 10:22 AM 7/2/01, J. Scott Bronson wrote: >Yet, how many times have we heard about the Steeds from the pulpit? How >many Mormons are desperately trying to find a link to the Steeds in there >genealogy? That's twice now on this list, and _never_ from the pulpit. Who the flip are the Steeds? - -- Ronn! :) - - 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 #384 ******************************