From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #579 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Friday, January 18 2002 Volume 01 : Number 579 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:57:08 -0500 From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Fodder for Satire At 02:27 PM 1/16/2002 -0700, you wrote: >I subscribe to an e-mail thingy from LDS Living, and they send out things >that are so corny I almost think it's a joke, but it's real. You can be sure >I'm assiduously filing this stuff both into my imagination and my hard >files. Consider the following two items: > >(1) >NEW!! FOOD STORAGE 4.0 SOFTWARE: [snip] If you do food storage (and some of us do) the food storage program is very useful. I received and earlier version (actually it was loaded on my computer by my computer nerd son who built the computer for me) and it is very handy. It helps me keep track of things, helps we remember to use stuff before it is too old (rotate stock). Believe me if you live on hurrican row GA, FLA, North and South Carolina) You recognize the use and need of food storage. Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www2.gasou.edu/commarts/puppet/ Georgia Southern University Puppet Theatre - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:02:01 -0800 From: Julie Kirk Subject: Re: [AML] Moulin Rouge) Thanks for all the feedback on Moulin Rouge. I guess I can understand why friends might have termed it as "all about sex" since in some superfifical way it was, but I do really enjoy something that makes me think, so figure I'll be seeing it soon. A couple of last movie tabulations from me - Some of the movies that you've named definitely stuck out in my mind, though I don't go see alot. But a few favorites over the last year for me were A Beautiful Mind Chocolat Lord of the Rings (loved the epic quality of it even if it did stray at times - it was worth the 20 year wait to see someone attempt to do it right!) American Beauty (saw it finally on cable and completely loved it) and Best in Show (Christopher Guest) and still a long time favorite is _Guess Who's Coming to Dinner_, which I sat down and watched again a few weeks ago. I know there are movies I've seen that I am just completely not remembering - - I see something, love it, then forget about it until I see it playing somewhere else. I do have to say that _Best in Show_ was hysterical and if you like it, make sure to see _Waiting for Guffman_ another personal favorite. I've only seen a few of Guest's movies, but his humor is so right on target and I'd love to see more. A few movies I'm still wanting to find the time to see are _In the Bedroom_ and _Anise_ among others. I know there were more, both that I've wanted to see and that I have seen, and my memory frustrates me as the names do not come to mind. Julie - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:17:19 -0800 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Ayn RAND, _Atlas Shrugged_ [MOD: There's a lot in the in-box relating to Ayn Rand's work. I'm planning to send it all on, for now. But if List volume stays high I may have to trim back this thread. We definitely will *not* get into a discussion of Libertarian politics... It's appropriate for Richard to point out the political connection, as he does here, because it's part of the impact of the literary work, but we need to stop short of getting into a debate over politics.] Robert Lauer wrote: > And on top of that, I think in it's philosophy it is a great MORMON work of > art. I too enjoyed Ayn Rand's books immensely. I agree that her naturalistic approach, disavowing the typical Greek notion of metaphysics is very consistent with both the scientific and LDS understanding of reality, and hence I can appreciate Robert's reaction to it. My problem with her came at her acceptance of every form of behavior as being without basic moral dilemma. As you no doubt know, she--or more accurately, I believe--her followers started the Libertarian Party. It is the libertarian idea that society has no legitimate interest in legislating moral behavior at which I parted company with her. My view of that issue is that society has legitimate interests in many aspects of the behavior of its citizens that Ayn Rand felt should not be regulated. So I can also appreciate the reaction of others on this list to her works. Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:07:26 -0700 From: "Marianne Hales Harding" Subject: Re: [AML] Online List Dynamics (was: Christian Literature) >Would they all turn war-like if you stuck 'em online and let them >choose >their own names? Would anonymity give them the security they >need to vent >all their rage at anyone or anything who disagrees with >them--and how much >rage would we find in a typical group of Mormon >women? I think most Relief Societies would end up in a catfight if given anonymity and very quickly too. All those years of stifling comments at the end of a long block of meetings... Marianne Hales Harding _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:39:37 -0700 From: Marny Parkin Subject: [AML] Life, the Universe, & Everything XX (SF Symposium at BYU) This is a forwarded announcement about the science fiction/fantasy symposium at BYU. I'll forward a tentative schedule as soon as I see one. For more information, email Charlene or try http://www.jps.net/helgem/ltue/. Marny Parkin Life, the Universe and Everything XX is coming up February 21-23, 2002. Yep. That's the closing weekend of the Olympics. We tried to schedule it for March, but it was either this weekend, or summer. Our Guests of Honor this year are Larry Niven and Jennifer Roberson. Other guests include Dr. Michael R. Collings as Poetry GOH, Christian Ready from the Hubble Space Telescope Institute as the Science/Academic GOH, and (possibly) Marty Brenneis from Industrial Light and Magic as Media GOH. The symposium is FREE to all. If you want to be on panels, these are the people to email. Academic track/Special Events: Ivan Wolfe--iaw2@email.byu.edu Create Your Own World: Amy Larsen--mountainscape@hotmail.com Writing: Charlene Harmon--c2h@aol.com Art: Bobbie Berendson--bobbie@berendson.com Media: Kristin--shichigosan@yahoo.com Chairman: Jenna Eatough--jenna@eatough.net Ann Chamberlin is doing a novel workshop. Those who would like to have the first 10 pages of their manuscript critiqued during this workshop need to have it submitted over a week prior to the symposium. She will only accept a limited number of manuscripts. This workshop will be followed by a two hour workshop on writing techniques and exercises that will be opened to everyone. Dr. Michael R. Collings will be giving a poetry workshop. He will also do a poetry workshop for teens. There may be other writing workshops. Thanks for you time, and I look forward to seeing you at LTUE! Charlene Harmon Writing Track Chair c2h@aol.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:11:02 -0700 From: "Peter E. Chamberlain" Subject: RE: [AML] Ayn RAND, _Atlas Shrugged_ You could also say that everything we do that is seemingly altruistic is ultimately selfishly motivated because of the beneficence of God. We know that God blesses us beyond any effort that we make. So in the back of our heads we know that ultimately any good we do will be paid back to us tenfold by God. I think in this way Rand's idea of supreme selfishness fits with the gospel. It may be cynical but I think it works. Peter Chamberlain Senior Estimator Westcon Microtunneling 800 South Main Pleasant Grove, UT 84062 Pchamberlain@westcon.net - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:55:45 -0700 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] Fodder for Satire On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 02:27:38PM -0700, Christopher Bigelow wrote: > I almost want to spend the money for these products so I can gather > authentic details. Maybe we could all work on a list of similar items in a > satirical vein--we wouldn't have to go far beyond what these marketers have, > I don't think. Wouldn't it be great if we had a Mad magazine or Onion of > Mormonism? I would probably roll on the floor laughing over the first issue, and then lament the early passing of such a publication. Having attempted some satirical letters to the editor at BYU, I have to report that although you might find a general authority or two who really do have a sense of humor, too many church bureaucrats (and members at large) have no sense of humor whatsoever. These humorless individuals think that any attempt at cultural criticism crosses the line into "questioning the brethren" and quickly call the offending author on the carpet. Whoever first thought of the separation of church and state had the right idea. People who seem otherwise completely level headed can quickly become raving conservatives if they believe that someone has questioned a religious principle. Some people just cannot seem to understand that humorous comments about religion don't equal questioning religion. - -- Terry L Jeffress | I try to leave out the parts that people skip. South Jordan, UT | -- Elmore Leonard - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:58:13 -0500 From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: Re: [AML] Ayn RAND, _Atlas Shrugged_ D. Michael wrote: >Ayn Rand is a real paradox for Mormons. Most Mormons tend to be >conservative, and Rand is rabidly conservative when it comes to >political and economic issues. She presents a strong case for her >opinions. > >But she logically bases them on an intolerable foundation of >selfishness, atheism, and a morality of human intimacy that is as >laissez faire as her politics. These were all implications of her philosophy, not the foundation. The roots of her philosophy were pretty much Aristotelian: 1. The primacy of existence. (The universe exists independent of consiousness.) 2. The existence of consciousness. (We're able to grasp that something exists.) 3. The law of identity. (A thing is what it is, not something else.) 4. The law of causality. (Actions aren't determined by chance, but by a thing's nature.) Rand starts with these axioms and gradually progresses to their social application, which includes politics & economics as well as personal morality and atheism. Most of these branches of her philosophy aren't troubling from a doctrinal perspective, but when you get to the personal morality branch things are harder to take -- mostly because she refuses to grant the possibility of God. Rand preferred to define the word "selfish" as "rational self-interest," meaning we're supposed to look out for our own interests as opposed to compromising them in favor of someone else's interest, judgment, or morality. This isn't the kind of Nietzschean worldview that many ascribe to her, but Rand still had little regard for helping out those in need, unless there was a clear benefit involved. Although she advocated a general sense of benevolence and goodwill toward others, she even regarded this as a lesser virtue. I think it was a problem of limited knowledge. We believe that Christ's sacrifice was the primary purpose for his life here. He brought redemption to people that he loved -- all of humanity. So, his sacrifice was in his own interest -- without it, he would have lost everything he loved. Rand wasn't strictly anti-sacrifice -- she advocated sacrificing lower values for higher ones, and this included advocating that people should give up material comforts to provide for spouses and children, for example. To provide for people you love involves giving up something you value less in favor of something you value more. And clearly, that's what Christ did -- he gave up his life (a lower value) to save all of us (a higher value). But since Rand was an ardent atheist, she couldn't possibly have understood why Christ loved all of humanity, and since she didn't believe in an afterlife, she couldn't imagine any value higher than life itself. Her own conclusion (that Christ's sacrifice was foolish) is inconsistent with the premises of her philosophy, because of her limited outlook. When your outlook broadens to an eternal perspective, there's not much of a contradiction. >Now that I'm wise and sophisticated, I wonder how valid of a thing that >is to do. If she constructed a system of philosophy (Objectivism) whose >components she believed were self-consistently dependent on each other, >how valid is it for me to pick and choose what I like and discard the >rest? It depends on whether you think there's any validity to the foundation of the philosophy, that perhaps she got some of the details wrong. Or it would depend on whether or not internal consistency is the reason you value portions of the philosophy in the first place. Rand was a big influence in my life -- and is a large part of how I've ended up spending the past four years of my professional life, moving through various libertarian circles. Although there's a lot about her philosophy that I now disagree with (not just the moral implications), her books are still a good read (didacticism and all). You don't have to agree with someone to find their perspective interesting or engaging. Eric D. Dixon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:12:02 -0700 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] Online List Dynamics On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 02:48:48PM -0700, Amy Chamberlain wrote: > Also, it seems to me that if this group represents even a small part of the > LDS market for literature, those of you who want to publish shouldn't even > TRY to win them over. They may fire-bomb your house. In days of yore, religious authorities would often exercise their will by shunning an errant member. Members in good standing would risk church discipline if they engaged in any kind of commerce with a shunned person, commercial or social. Although the Church does not practice shunning as a result of a Bishop's court, the members often engage in a tacit judgement and shun those members that do not comply with the social norms of the church. I say go ahead an write your Mormon literature, and don't worry about the fire-bombs. Our members take a much more passive-agressive approach and deplore physical violence when social means prove just as effective. You might find that some members go out of their way to avoid talking to you (and your children). And you might go years at a time without a significant calling -- since you obviously might spread your intelectual disease to those with whom you serve. Of course if you wrote about a young woman who received such a shunning, these same people would not even recogize themselves and agree with the entire tragedy that could have never happened in their ward. [Sorry Chris, no satire in this one.] - -- Terry L Jeffress | It is a mistake to think that books have come to South Jordan, UT | stay. The human race did without them for | thousands of years and may decide to do without | them again. -- E. M. Forster - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 19:20:21 -0500 From: "robert lauer" Subject: RE: [AML] Ayn RAND, _Atlas Shrugged_ [MOD: Rob had suggested a more specific thread title for this particular post, but I put it back to the more general one. I try to keep thread titles consistent, except where a clear content change has occurred. If this post generates additional discussion on sexuality and character as a general issue, that is probably the point where I would rename the thread.] About Ayn Rand's fiction, Jacob Proffitt wrote: >I like many of the ideas, particularly the economic theory of _Atlas >Shrugged_. I couldn't finish it, however, because I so hated the stupid >sexual relationships and the way those intertwined so heavily into the >economic theory. They were kind of inseparable in the story and it >repulsed me. Ayn Rand had some interesting kinks in her psychology (and >no, I don't think it was "just the character"--it was too much depicted >as a rule of the universe and a prevalent part of both _Atlas Shrugged_ >and what little of _The Fountainhead_ I was able to get through)... In her fiction, Ayn Rand tries to demonstrate that sexual arousal and love are in response to values (the values another person holds or the values that that particular person represents in the eyes of another). Rand thought that you could no isolate one's sexual nature (that is, what arouses one romantically and sexually) from one's basic sense of life (the sum of all the philosophic premises that one holds--either consciously or subconsciously). "Study the type of woman a man wants to sleep with," she said, "and you can determine his philosophy and sense of life." Another time she said that a man can be married to what we would call a "virtuous woman," but if he find his greatest sexual fulfillment committing adultery with a prostitute, then the adultery with the prostitute reveals the man's real character. In Rand's thinking, sex is not dirty or animal but the highest and most profound expression of one's morals, values and loves. To my thinking, this resonates with the Gospel. I love the sexual relationships in Rand's books: they are high romance--in the classical sense of romantic philosophy.The sex scenes are not thrown in: they are vital to the plot and to the inner life and journey that the various characters are taking. The very last scene in THE FOUNTAINHEAD, in which the hero (a struggling architect) is standing a top a sky scraper that he is building, while the heroine (finally his wife after years of struggling on HER part) ascends up towards him on an elevator seems very "Mormon." (The scene resonates with our belief that the eternal marriage of man to woman is what makes humans into Gods.) I find evidence everywhere in life for Rand's contention that one's sense of life and personal philosophy (about the nature of the universe and man's place in it) determines who and what arouses one sexually. I am currently exploring Rand's concept in a novel I'm writing. The story is set in Utah Territory in the mid-1880's and deals with how polygamy affects the lives of several people--both Mormon and Gentile. I sense that Rand's theory of human sexuality may shed light on the practice of Plural Marriage among 19th century Saints. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:38:35 -0800 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Ayn RAND, _Atlas Shrugged_ D. Michael Martindale wrote: > That was part one of my thoughts. Part two addresses didacticism. If > there ever was a didactic modern author, it's Ayn Rand. May I cite another of whom I am also quite fond: Upton Sinclair (author of The Jungle, which single-handedly led to the establishment of the FDA early in the last century). Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:57:41 -0800 From: "Richard R. Hopkins" Subject: Re: [AML] Public and Private Mormon Lit I want to thank Melissa for her insightful responses, and comment further on the following, which she wrote: > But the other kind isn't much better, because that privacy comes off as > secrecy or embarrassment. Fiction that tries too hard *not* to preach > starts sounding weird or even incomprehensible; it's one thing not > describing the temple ceremony, but if (for example) you won't even mention > temple robes or refer to the endowment as merely a "religious ceremony," I > think a lot of readers will start wondering what you have to hide. While editing Disoriented, I saw an opportunity. The author had a scene where the hero (and LDS RM and scientist) is changing his shirt in a car which the heroine (a non-LDS scientist) is driving. It is Arizona and they are driving in the desert. They are romantically interested in each other, and it seemed to me that she would see his garments and wonder why, under those climatic conditions, he didn't remove them. I asked him to include a brief dialogue in which she notices and asks about them, and he explains why he intends to wear the T-shirt she has given him over them. Is that an example of what you're talking about here? I ask because that is consistent with my definition of "private LDS fiction." In other words, I'm not talking about "secret LDS fiction." Really what I think I'm talking about is the very combination you describe next: > The kind of LDS fiction that I believe will succeed best in the national > market is the kind that seeks to describe accurately and thoroughly, not to > preach; the kind that isn't afraid to talk about the things that make > Mormons unique; the kind that neither takes our religion for granted nor > assumes that it is too bizarre to be accepted by others. There is no more > virtue in hiding our faith from the keen gaze of outsiders than there is is > shouting it from the rooftops. What you describe as private LDS fiction is > probably closer to this than the other, but only because I believe public > LDS fiction is already not directed at the national market. I don't think > private LDS fiction as you describe it is the ideal writing style for > success on a national level either. What we really need is a combination of > the two. Can you (or anyone) give any examples of this that you think really hit the mark? Richard Hopkins - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 00:55:30 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] SIBLEY, _The Shadow of Light_ (Daily Herald) Director draws on local legends for inspiration The Daily Herald on Saturday, January 12 By KAREN HOAG OREM -- Legends abound in Utah, and Rob Sibley included some of them in his LDS-oriented movie "The Shadow of Light." Lost treasure, disappearing wagon trains and Montezuma sending his gold to Kanab are just some of the legends interwoven into Sibley's first feature film, which will soon be available on video in local stores. The KBYU production supervisor wanted to include stones. "There are always stories about stones that do various things, like in Harry Potter," he said. A Book of Mormon story tells of stones lighting the way for the Jaredites. "Now what would have happened to those?" Sibley asked himself. "Here are some bright stones; would they have kept them once they got to America? Pass them down from generation to generation?" Written by Sibley five years ago, the story is aimed at all different ages. "There's nothing embarrassing that makes Mom and Dad cringe," Sibley said. "It's a compelling mystery: What happened to the pioneers and the treasure?" He wrote three stories and filmed the first one because it takes place locally. After outlining for a month he turned it into a screenplay during the winter and filmed it this past summer. "I set the story in the 1940s because that's when my mom and dad lived, so it's kind of an homage to them," Sibley said. "You have people in the '40s who knew the pioneers. We could actually go to them and ask, 'What happened?'" "Shadow" tells of two brothers (played by Holt Hamilton of BYU and Dallen Johnson of Payson) who are stranded in a southern Utah town after a disastrous summer camping trip. The guys find a journal that hints at missing treasure. They are aided by a friend, played by Christina Shelley, a BYU student from Orem. Originally from Baton Rouge, La., Sibley has always been fascinated with LDS Church history. "We have a tie to the Book of Mormon in the story," he said. "I have no desire to preach in my TV and filmmaking work, but if by watching this movie people go and pick up the Book of Mormon, my objective has been reached." Sibley was amazed that 250 people showed up for the open casting calls. "I didn't have anyone in mind," he said. "I wanted to give everyone an opportunity to take a step up. I'd never done a feature film, so I was taking a step up. I was very pleased with the quality of people who came out." Shelley, a linguistics major at BYU, tried out when someone in casting encouraged her. "Getting to know everyone was one of the best parts of the experience," she said. She learned that movies are not shot in sequence. "We did the ending scene halfway through," she said. "They want to get everything in the same spot so they don't have to travel back and forth and change costumes and props." During the two weeks she earned "a small fortune." "Everybody got paid in this movie," Sibley said. "Not much, but they got paid." More time is spent preparing and editing than actually shooting, which took 15 days. "It's matter unorganized," he said with a grimace. "It's amazing every time I do a show, how this vast puzzle fits together." The movie is to be released soon to local stores. "Mormon moviedom is in its infancy," Sibley said. "I have no idea what the market is. Our goal is to make the money we invested back and a little bit more so we can continue doing this." =A9 2001 by HarkTheHerald.com _________________________________________________________________ Join the world=92s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.=20 http://www.hotmail.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 20:03:29 -0500 (EST) From: Gordon Banks Subject: Re: [AML] God in _Lord of the Rings_ Tolkien's God is named "Iluvatar" and stays in the background during LotR. Doesn't mean he isn't as active behind the scenes as the Mormon God is in our cosmology. If you want to read a Tolkien book where Iluvatar is one of the active characters, I suggest "The Silmarillion." Gordon Banks - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 02:00:58 +0000 From: "Andrew Hall" Subject: [AML] re: Ayn RAND, _Atlas Shrugged_ The discussion about Ayn Rand has been very interesting. About a year ago I listened with a mixture of fascination and horror to an unabridged recording of The Fountainhead while driving across the country by myself. I desperately wanted to talk about it with some others who read it, but I moved to Japan, where the English reading population is pretty scarce, and put it on the back shelf of my mind. I'll try to dredge my reactions back up. I'd like to hear from those who agree with parts of her philosophy how you reconsile it with Mormonism. First of all her writing style was both engaging and annoying. She creates a fascinating story, but she also covered the same points over and over again so many times, I often turned the tape off and say "enough already". The "bad" characters were so bad they were like cartoons. And the weird sexual stuff was very weird. Especially the thing about how Roarke and the main female (I forget her name) couldn't be together, even though they decided they were right for each other half way through. They both seem to have decided that she had to torture herself and him by marrying the hack architect for a while, and then by marrying their best friend for a while. Like she had to work her way up from the lowest of men, up to a state where she could be with Roarke. I never got the point of that. The one character I really liked was the newspaper magnet, who so closely resembled Kane from Citizen Kane. He was the most human of the group, an interesting mix of positive and negative characteristics, whose actions, based on his character, made sense. Her critique of socialism and altruism certainly was devastating. What she says about charity destroying the life force of the receiver was very convincing. But how do you reconcile that with the Savior's commands to help the poor and needy, go the extra mile, and all that. Christ and Rand's positions on altruism seem to be completely at odds, have you found a way to reconcile them? Her comments about the nonexistence of God and religion, on the other hand, had no impact on me. Robert, can you tell us more how Rand's arguments about God's nonexistence are similar to the Pratt brothers'? Also, I am uncomfortable with her exclusive praise of the individual over community. I think there can be more of a mix than she allows. I crave the strong community bonds which can develop in a good ward, for example, which I think she would dismiss as a weakness in me. Mormons tend to be a very community-oriented people. Also, the family. I don't remember clearly, but I think she was pretty dismissive of the importance of the family structure. Again, how do you reconcile these very Mormon concepts of community and family with Rand? Still, she certainly makes one stop and think. I plan to read Atlas Shrugged sometime soon. Andrew Hall Fukuoka, Japan _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:39:45 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] American Book Publishing (was: Part Time Editing Work) Being a part-time/contract editor, I sent in my resume in response to this notice (I've been wanting to expand my work base recently, and it sounded like this might fit my circumstances). I got some information in reply that I think will be interesting for AML-List members, particularly those who might be thinking about submitting their own resumes. I haven't yet received permission to forward the reply email I received to the List, but I can summarize what are for me the most interesting points: * They have received many resumes, so are trying to screen further for those who both meet their qualifications and are interested in the work conditions. * They want at least an 18-month commitment of 8-10 hours a week. * Payment is on the basis of 5% royalty on each book edited (after bookseller's markup and printing costs are deducted). This appears to be the only compensation. * Editors must be able/willing to wait 18-24 months to receive any money for editing work they do. Putting on my own (non-moderator) hat and opinionating for a bit, I find that this approach raises a number of interesting issues. From looking at American Book Publishing's Web site, it appears that they are trying to launch a new publishing house that will compete with mainstream publishers by trying out a different business model that includes print publication but with an increasing focus on electronic distribution. Unlike many other startup electronic publishers, they do screen submissions and offer both editorial and sales/marketing support. However, the compensation structure for authors--and, apparently, for editors as well--is set up to minimize financial risk while getting books out on the market. While they hold out the possibility for advances in the case of authors with a proven sales record, it appears that in most cases--certainly in all cases with an unknown author--there is no advance, but only a share of royalties after expenses are met. Authors don't pay a fee for publication, but for authors without professional experience there can be a $780 "deposit" requirement--in order, as the Web site explains it, to weed out those who aren't willing to make a serious commitment to the editing/revision process. (The money is returned "the first quarter after the book has been formally released"; no requirement is mentioned of sales performance, so presumably--since they're calling it a deposit--return of the deposit is not tied to sales.) As American Book Publishing explains it, none of this seems to me unethical, though it is all quite far from standard publishing practice. If, after all, you are trying to break into an industry in an unconventional way, you have to try some unusual things. And certainly competition with the major publishers is a Good Thing in itself, for a variety of reasons. I like to see the standard model for publishing challenged. At the same time, it's a real question to me whether this is a good deal for authors and editors. As an author, before agreeing to publish with this company, I would want some information on how well their sales efforts have worked with titles they've already put out--information that doesn't seem to be readily available on the Web site. I'd particularly want to know how their sales have been with books of a type similar to mine: other mysteries, for example, if I were a mystery writer. They claim to want to publish comedy, historical, mystery, romance, science fiction, other fiction, academic, biography, how-to, self-help, business, and other nonfiction. That's a lot of territory, and the sales/marketing issues are in some cases very different for these different types of writing. For example, standard--and reputable--academic publishing requires a peer review process that I very much doubt they've set up. Without such a process, I can't think that they would be able to sell many copies of their books to any of the standard academic markets (e.g., university professors and research libraries). I'd want to know where, and how, they are marketing books--with specifics--before casting in my lot with them, unless I had already tried all the conventional publishers and failed. (And maybe not even then.) The issues for editors are in some ways even more serious. If the editor gets paid on the basis of an edited book's success, who chooses which books the editor works on? In conventional publishing, many books (I don't know specifics; can someone who's worked on that side suggest a percentage range?) never make money for the publisher at all, or in any event not enough to require paying the author more than the original advance. That being the case, there seems to be a very real risk that in many instances, an editor may put in long hours on a project and not get back any compensation to speak of. Few really good editors, I suspect, will be willing to work on that basis--something else an author should keep in mind in working with this publisher. There's a trust issue here too. American Book Publishing's main Web page boasts that the company is privately held and that its charter forbids "funds raised by large venture capital investors and/or debt financing." The flip side of that, of course, is a lack of the oversight and external accountability that comes with a publicly held company, and of funds to provide up-front compensation to authors and editors. You have to trust that they'll be around long enough for you to get any money. In a sense, authors and, particularly, editors are being asked to finance the company through sweat equity. That's a shrewd business model if your goal (at least initially) is to put out as many books as you can for as little money as possible. On the other hand, it suggests a kind of go-for-broke business plan that raises real doubts, in my mind, that the company will even exist two years from now. And with the time/money flow going overwhelmingly *toward* the company at first, I can't help but feel that authors and editors are being required to trust the company and its leadership to an extraordinary degree. It strikes me that there's a great deal in American Book Publishing's approach--the sweat-equity concept (my words, not theirs); payment based on royalties; deferral of the return on investment; development of a far-flung cadre of collaborating professionals--that might fit very nicely into a cooperative publishing framework, of the sort that has been suggested on AML-List and kicked around a lot, I'm sure, in private conversations. The difference is that American Book Publishing has gone ahead and done it. Except, of course, that there's another important difference as well: there's been some spreading around of risk and reward, but I see no hint that those who work with this company have been given any share in governance and decision-making. It's *not* a cooperative, and so I find myself less willing than I might be, in the case of a true cooperative, to make a free, no-guarantees-returned, long-term investment of my time and professional skill in an organization that ultimately remains a "them" and not an "us." Putting on my moderator hat again: This, of course, is only my own personal take on this, based on inevitably limited knowledge of American Book Publishing. AML-List welcomes differing views, including any from American Book, to whom I'm forwarding a copy of this post. I'd especially like to hear the opinions of List members who have worked extensively in publishing. I don't want to see this turn into a "bash" session, but I think it's important that we allow a thorough airing of the issues involved. AML-List, among its other identities, is the premier forum for writers, editors, and others working in the Mormon literary scene. If there are publisher practices that we have questions or concerns about, this is the place for those questions to be raised and discussed. Jonathan Langford AML-List Moderator Speaking this time (mostly) for myself, and (a little bit) for the List jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #579 ******************************