From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #27 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, April 17 2003 Volume 02 : Number 027 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:17:31 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Time Heals Artistic Wounds (was: Blood into Literature) Jongiorgi Enos wrote: > I'm finally > getting a chance to sit down and watch Ken Burn's epic documentary, > "JAZZ". > I was astonished to hear quotations from > turn-of-the-last-century newspapers talking about Ragtime that could > have been transposed, word-for-word, into the 60's or 70's as talking > about rock. I mean, if the quotation had not been read in context, I > would have had no idea that Ragtime was the subject, and not some more > modern "subversive" form. > > It seems to me, then, that every generation, every decade, every > movement of change, has been plagued by a division between the creators > and enjoyers of the new movement -- who revel in a freshly-discovered > sense of freedom and expression -- and the observes and disdainers of > the new movement -- who scorn and deride what they see as, at best, a > distortion of better more classic forms and, at worst, a genuine vehicle > for evil. This is true, and I have already lived long enough to have witnessed this personally. My pop music heyday spans the mid-60s to the mid-70s, which as every true connoisseur* of pop music knows is the golden decade of rock and roll. Before that was cute (quaint, in Jon's words) rock and roll of the three-chord variety, and after that was the dismal decline of rock into disco and new wave/punk. Now that I have two teenagers under my roof and want to share the great music I grew up with so they can enjoy it too, I am appalled to discover that what I consider artistic genious they dismal as "old." They treat my golden age of music the same way I looked at 50s and early 60s rock music. And what are they listening to? Backstreet Boys, N-Sync, and the abominations that ABBA knock off A-teens generated. Groups that technically sing well, but who perform music that is aesthetically and sociologically vapid. I'll gladly take the diamond-in-the-rough works of the musical greats of the golden age of rock and roll. Of course, this is just a generational thing. Everyone thinks the golden age of pop music is the one they grew up during. I can enjoy early rock and roll in the right mood, and I'll even concede that disco and punk rock, those assassins of great rock music, have their artistic merits, in spite of my inability to appreciate them. But when it comes to rap and hip-hop, there I draw the line. I can't believe that it's a mere subjective, generational thing that these forms of alleged music actually have artistic merit. My father called my music "noise," but I truly can't accept these new manifestations of pop "music" as anything but. I live in dread that I may be suffering from the same generational myopicism that my father did, that in twenty years Snoop Dog's music will be covered in elevators by Muzak. I do have hope, however. In my one-time occupation as airport shuttle driver, I transported several people in the music industry, several of whom voiced the same opinion. That opinion was summed up well by one individual's statement: "I can appreciate just about everty kind of music, but I truly don't get rap." These are people a generation or two younger than me, too. So I have hope that my aversion to such music is an absolute aesthetic, not mere old-fogyism. > Ragtime, which seems to us now as such a jaunty, fun, classic, and even = > innocent music, was truly thought to be music to loose children's souls = > by in the 1900's! Perhaps rock will seem as quaint some day. It already does. A decade or two ago the Beatles' "Revolution" was used to sell sneakers. Carly Simon's "Anticipation" was used to sell Heinz ketchup. I listen to the drug-promoting "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" with quaint nostalgia as my children sit in the back seat of the car, not once worrying about the harmful effects my parents once did. I explained to them what the song meant: Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, LSD--get it? They don't care. It's "old" music. We were weird back then. > I guess it is a point of perspective. Just as Ragtime and Jazz were once = > controversial but now have come into their own, and rock was once = > derided but is now seen with less of a dangerous bite, perhaps, too, LDS = > writing which "opens its veins and bleeds upon the page" will find a = > place, even if it is just a small place, in the pantheon of our growing = > literature. Once the floodgates open and the same time-healing effect as with "evil" music takes place (i.e., people get used to it and so it becomes less threatening and therefore stops being labeled "inappropriate"), I think this "bloodletting" LDS literature will become quite popular. - -- * One of the few words I always have to look up to spell right. - -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:16:16 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: [AML] Escaping Faith? I've really enjoyed reading Marilyn's, Paris's and Michael's takes on my revelation, but this will be on a serious note. I got caught by the following line: G. Keystone said: "Some consider these writings to be fiction but To Brother Crowther and now myself they are unimpeachable witness of not 2 or 3, but hundreds of thousands who combined testimony almost eliminates even the need for faith." Now, did I miss something here? ELIMINATES the need for faith?? That sounds even more dangerous than anything Richard Paul Evans will ever think of. I will confess that I have never read a Duane Crowther book, and I don't know the controversy that surrounded _Prophecy_ (but I'd like to). I'll further confess that the whole premise of "life after life" stories makes me nervous. The study group Bruce and I belong to read a book describing in detail a "life after life" experience. The group's response was pretty unanimous: "Why would this guy not only share but MARKET something so personal and sacred?" One of our group said that if the author of this book had approached him with his story, he'd say to keep it personal-and definitely not to publish it. I can freely confess that I was hired by Aspen Books to do the first audio recording of _Embraced by the Light_--sight unseen. I thought some parts of it inspiring, but found other parts a bit far-fetched, but I did record it. My overall impression was, "I believe Betty Eadie did indeed have a significant experience, but I suspect her memory has been embellished over the years." (Still, I found _Embarrassed by the Light_ to be mean-spirited, badly written, and brimming with logical fallacies.) I frankly don't trust memory. I have some very strong feelings, for example, on Zebedee Coltrin's memory of events leading to the priesthood restriction. To be honest, when I read Zebedee's accounts of all the things he claimed to have seen, I got a picture of a very old, poor man who needed attention and had a ready audience. So suddenly he's remembering visions of Adam and Eve, of the Father and the Son, etc. If this guy had every experience he claimed to have had, he surpasses anyone I know of in angelic visitations-including Joseph Smith. I am suspicious, even cynical. And more so because I see Zebedee getting all sorts of attention for his stories and telling them not in sacred places, but at Pioneer Day celebrations. Sorry, but I don't buy it. I suspect death will be something like many people have described, but I will not be spending much time reading about other people's near deaths. I have far too much to do in my LIFE, and besides, I don't want the surprise spoiled. Seriously, I think there's a place to share such experiences, but I don't think booksellers' conventions fit into that category. And if anyone tells me that a particular book will remove my need of faith, that book is automatically banned from my personal list and nightstand. I'll take _The Brother's Karamazov_ over a Duane Crowther book, thanks. Dostoevsky and others of his rare skill and thought leave me more and more convinced of my NEED of faith. ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:24:46 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Artists' Personal Lives Peter Chamberlain wrote: > > Is suffering only the side of the spectrum that can create "art"? Can > great joy, happiness etc be the spawn of great art? Is it less suffering > in specific or intense emotion that causes people to create? That's exactly what I want to know--exactly why I brought the topic up. So I'm asking you to answer your own questions. Even if you're not sure of the answers, give us your best guess. - -- 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:38:30 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: Re: [AML] _Chicago_ While I enjoyed Richard's response to Chicago, and mostly agree with it, = I'd take it a step further: >CHICAGO is one of the most blatant, heavy-handed critical >commentaries = on=20 >American culture that I have ever seen. The lyrics of the songs are = >soaked=20 >with ironic, accusatory meaning. The characters are functional (and = >truthful)=20 >stereotypes: the dishonest, charming do-anything-to-win attorney. The = >sleazy=20 >do-anything-to-succeed performers. The lesbian do-anything-for-a-buck = >prison=20 >matron...etc...etc...etc. Absolutely. That's what's great, and moral, about it. It's a satire. = But . . . >I think what probably confuses you, and many other viewers, is that = >while=20 >being a strong satire of our corruption, it also shamelessly celebrates = our=20 >corruption. It's as if the creative team behind the film is saying, "Look = >how=20 >shallow, immoral, selfish, and vicious we are. Ain't it great?!" I'd put it this way; it's primarily a satire on celebrity, and on the = depressing reality that it doesn't matter how you become a celebrity, as = long as you do. If you're a showgirl, murder, as long as it's well = publicized, can be a rather good career move. Example: last night, I'm watching TV, and I see a promo for a new reality = series. Host: Monica Lewinski. Makes sense. She's a celebrity. She's = famous. People will watch this new show because she's hosting it, = presumably. =20 Now, if they watch the show and Ms. Lewinsky's awkward and uncharming and = not entertaining, well, the show will flop. But heck, the Anna Nicole = Smith show is very popular, based on what? Well, she's famous. She slept = with an old guy and got his loot, and posed for Playboy; never mind that = she's dumb as a brick and that she dresses like she thinks she's still a = size 4 hottie which she decidedly isn't anymore. She's famous, and = watching her on television is amusing. What else matters? So what Chicago is saying is 'you folks out there, you like corruption. = You think corruption is great fun, as long as it's amusing. If it's icky = or boring or dull, we don't care, but we love sexy murder and sexy = murderers as long as they're entertaining.' And therefore, Chicago says = something completely and utterly true. And saying it, I maintain, is = moral. >To me, the film says: "We're going to hell in a fast car. We know we're = >bad.=20 >We like it. And we're having so much fun that we're never going to = stop."=20 >And, to me, that's what American culture is whispering beneath all its = hollow=20 >shouting about "family, tradition and patriotism." Well, yeah. But we do like it, as a nation anyway.=20 And what's fun about Chicago is that it's set in The Past. It's saying, = not only do we celebrate evil, we've done so for a very long time. Which = is also true. >CHICAGO reveals our nation's true values even more than it reveals the=20 >dancers' bodies. After seeing the film I am convinced there is far = more=20 >corruption beneath our fancy business suits than beneath our fishnet=20 >stockings. Actually, I don't own any fishnet stockings. Honest.=20 >Whenever I need some, I borrow Jongiorgi's. And I used to borrow Tim Slover's, until I stretched 'em out. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:03:14 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] RE: _March Tale_ and _Shakespeare in Love_ I appreciate Clark for pointing out interviews with Stoppard I'd missed. = Like Clark, I'm an enormous fan of Tom Stoppard's work as a playwright and = screenwriter, but I've never believed that Stoppard had anything to do = with Norman's plagiarism. >I don't know anything about the _March Tale_ vs. _Shakespeare in >Love_ parallel. So I can't comments. I'd just say that there are a finite >number of ideas and so I could see it going either way. Further, we are >dealing with an actual historic figure with an actual life which makes >the significance of parallels that much harder to deal with. The facts of the case are suspicious. What is true is that Tim sent his = screenplay version of March Tale to Parfitt personally. It didn't just go = to the Miramax reading room, along with the other fifty thousand they get = annually. Parfitt was a friend of a friend, and Tim's only real Hollywood = connection. Tim sent it registered mail, and Parfitt signed for it. Now, = if Parfitt was in fact working on producing a film based on Shakespeare = material, the standard practice would be for him to send Tim's screenplay = back unread, with a covering note saying 'I can't read this. I'm working = on a project that has a similar subject and approach. Good luck to you.' = Never happened. Instead, Parfitt produced SIL, and all the while did not = respond to numerous letters and phone calls from Tim regarding it. =20 So, sure, it's possible that two writers could get similar ideas and = develop them in parallel ways based on certain historical material. But = in this case, one of SIL's producers had Tim's screenplay for two years = before SIL came out. Had it personally, in his hands. So I don't buy = coincidence. Eric Samuelsen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:27:30 -0600 From: "Eugene Woodbury" Subject: [AML] Mormons and Others (was: Wanting to Be Jews) [MOD: A word of caution here. I think the questions and issues Eugene raises are central to our discussion; however, I can easily see how this could lead to a more general discussion of the relation of our Church, doctrinally and sociologically, to other faiths. Such discussion is not appropriate here, except insofar as it affects Mormon art (particularly literature). So feel free to reply to Eugene, but keep the strong tie-in to what Mormon artists are and should be doing, and how our work is received both within the Mormon world and outside it.] >I am willing to meet >with other Christians--and yes, I consider myself Christian, >though they do not--despite our religious differences. I don't >get it, and my friend won't open up to me. I sense that he >has heard some nasty things about The Church of Jesus >Christ of Latter-day Saints. >Again, though they were filled with Christian ideals >at all other moments . . . when it came to Mormons >they had an uncompromising position - they're wrong. But, of course, that has always been, and remains, the equally uncompromising Mormon position. Right there in Joseph Smith History 1:19, 20: all other religions are wrong. We're not disagreeing here over points of doctrine or interpretations of scripture. They're not just wrong, but "corrupt," "an abomination in [God's] sight." Ouch! So we share no sacramental authority, no baptism, no ordinances, no priesthood. No nothing (well, a few hymns, and a conservative political agenda). And then we say, Hey, don't take it so personally. Well, if you take your non-Mormon Christian faith seriously, how do you not? Here's this upstart religion, and to concede the legitimacy of its claims means to discredit your own. (I think that is also the essence of general Protestant antagonism towards the Catholic church.) The great irony in all this is that the Mormon view of salvation is ultimately the most liberal of all the Christian faiths. So liberal that you might be prompted to ask, why the need to evangelize? But as long as we lay claim to JSH 1:19, 20, should we not then admit that there can be no true fraternity with the non-Mormon believer? Because an implicit attitude of condescension will be communicated in the dialog: the unspoken "Yes, but . . . we're right and you're not" that follows any deferential statement--that you (the "gentile") are never going to know everything unless you're first one of us (unless, in order to find out, you talk to anti-Mormons who are rude enough to publish the details of things like the temple; unfortunately, information from such sources often comes with large helpings of bitterness and vituperation). Additionally, I think there is the general perception that Mormons are constantly changing the rules while the game is being played. We're the One True Religion, but what do we (now) believe about polygamy? (I do wonder, having polygamists in the family tree.) About King Follett? (A work of 19th-century Socratic and Transcendentalist literature that belongs alongside Emerson and Thoreau.) Faith vs. Works? (2 Nephi 25:23 gets it right, but does that mean we're saved by grace, or no?) Infallibility? (If we believe that the Bible is only as true as it was translated correctly, why do we cling so tenaciously to the King James?) Or is this all simply the current "face" we're putting on our doctrine? Are we saying, Well, we won't talk about such things if it offends you, but we'll still assert them behind your back . . . ? Our most-quoted unofficial General Authority, C.S. Lewis, was an Anglican, but I have found nowhere in his writings that his particular sect-of-choice was superior to all others. His opinion on the subject, as far as I can tell, was that such things were of small importance. Yet his ecumenicalism did not mute the stridency of his opinions. The Space Trilogy (which I consider his best work) is built upon a foundation of firmly held principles and beliefs, strongly argued, no quarter given. Yet you can disagree with Lewis and respect him and enjoy and learn from his books precisely because you know exactly where he stands. He demonstrates that you can be highly tendentious about your beliefs without rousing a reflexive antagonism--when you don't at the same time automatically foreclose the legitimacy of all other viewpoints (without adding several paragraphs of qualifications). At the root of the problem I see a profound confusion. When Mormons articulate a belief-set in a work of art--novel, play, film, etc.--are we representing only ourselves? The community? The church? Are we governed how we will be interpreted--whether 51 percent of the churchgoing public says yea or nay? When I write for a public forum, I am representing what the church believes, or asserting a personal interpretation of what I believe the gospel is? And can it be held against me if it doesn't conform closely enough to "doctrine"? Does JSH 1:19, 20 remain a necessary and fundamental part of our catechism? I don't think a "Mormon art" (not to be confused with art that comes from artists who happen to be Mormons) can fully develop until such questions are resolved. That is, until freely answering the question doesn't subject you to the "Do you bet your life?" fine print that again forces you to qualify, qualify, qualify, not only what we say to our own community, but what we say to those outside it. Eugene Woodbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:08:01 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: RE: [AML] Author's Omniscience At 06:15 PM 4/14/03, you wrote: >Ah, but have you ever seen us in the same room at the same time? > >Thom Duncan Oh! Oh! Oh! I know I know! You three *should* have been all in the same room at the November AML Writers Conference... but WAIT: --now that I think on it, I'm not sure I did see each of the three personas simultaneously... and Margaret DID leave early... Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:41:59 -0700 (PDT) From: William Morris Subject: [AML] Mapletree Publishing Company Forgive me if someone has already posted information on this publisher, I can't remember if this has come up or not. But I came across this Web site through an unrelated google search: http://www.mapletreepublishing.com/ The company claims to be an LDS publishing company that is not an "LDS publishing company." The company is located in Iowa, but intends to reach both national markets and LDS bookstores. Perhaps of more interest to this group is the page directed to LDS authors: http://www.mapletreepublishing.com/ldsauthor.htm And yep, _Fiddler on the Roof_ gets mentioned. A quote: "Since our aim is higher (we want to be noticed on a national level), the quality of our titles needs to be better than the average L.D.S. publisher. Fiction works need to be of the cream of the crop of L.D.S. fiction. That is a key step in establishing our credibility on the national scene. We're fortunate to have signed some of the outstanding L.D.S. authors that will help us establish that credibility. Non-fiction needs to be well-written, well-researched, and needs to address a general need. We will probably reject manuscripts that may be accepted by other L.D.S. publishers." There is a small list of forthcoming titles with brief descriptions. I don't have time to go into it now, but the marketing copy on this Web site, especially that directed to LDS authors takes an interesting rhetorical stance. The quote above gives you a taste of it. I'm most interested to see if their actual products, authors roster, and marketing/publicity programs/materials match the rhetoric. I've noticed that Mapletree has a links page that contains a link to the AML Web site. If any Mapletree employees are lurking on this list, would they care to share more info? What do the rest of you think? ~~William Morris __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:33:41 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: [AML] Duane Crowther At 07:39 PM 4/13/03, you wrote: >But I would consider myself much the poorer without accidently >running into Duane Crowther at the last yearly LDS booksellers convention and >trading our book and a few dollars for his new version of Life Everlasting >and 5 other books on life after death. I'm sorry, but praise for this man's work hits a sore spot. I consider my life much the poorer for having to have any dealing with him whatsoever. Would it bother you very much, Glen, to learn that Crowther also willfully cheated me after receiving the inventory of my published book as part of a settlement, by selling it with full knowledge he had no right to do so? I was *startled* to find MY book listed in the Horizon catalog. No representative had contacted me previous to their advertisement. It was a clear and provable violation of copyright law. He asked for no permission, offered me no explanation for the 200 copies that somehow "disappeared" from his inventory, and utterly refused to stop selling my book illegally after a written request that he cease and desist. He also called me personally to ask for information about Cornerstone's business that he had no legal right to have. (I can only assume he thought I would be naive enough to give him the information, which I did not.) This is not an honest man. I had to threaten a lawsuit in order to get his selling price for the books down to a reasonable amount. Frankly, I'm still well within my legal rights to sue if I want to. I chose to purchase the books from them *only* because that cost was far less expensive than pursuing a lawsuit, and it would close the deal much faster, and I could be done with it. Or so I thought. Last week I heard that a CA bookstore received a copy of my book. That copy did not come from me, and I am *supposed* to possess all remaining unsold copies. I'm still in the process of discovering where it DID come from. Therefore I'll refrain from placing the blame on Horizon until I find that out for sure. But I am NOT happy. I've tried not to mention this mess too much here on the List out of a sense of personal decency, but if by their fruits ye shall know them, he offers a rather mixed-up fruit salad, in my opinion. And while I agree that the spirit world is closer than we think, and quite real, I will *never* purchase any of Crowther's books. Or any other Horizon book. I think this is appropos to our discussion of an artist's personal life being relevant to the quality of his art. How can a man with plainly dishonest business practices, worthy of being sued, patently disobeying the law of the land, produce something of such an apparently high spiritual caliber? How is this possible? Linda Adams Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 21:22:24 GMT From: dhunt_aml@juno.com Subject: [AML] Edit One Novel for $100 [MOD: Let me reiterate Darvell's request not to respond to this on AML-List, unless you want to make a comment on the offer itself. And yes, I do consider this sort of thing at least marginally appropriate for AML-List, at least until/unless the volume of such notices grows too great. Where else but here does it make sense for us to conduct the business, as well as the pleasurable discussion, of the Mormon literary community?] I have decided to publish my pre-Mormon-Utah historical novel _The Last Expedition_ by myself, in the absence of an offer from a mainstream LDS publisher. But I don't feel comfortabey doing it without a professional editor looking it over first. I made a similar offer awhile back for my novella _A Mormon Christmas Carol_ with the offer of a free book,which still stands for those who did the work for me. I am planning on publishing this Christmas novella by Thanksgiving. But since it's a seasonal item, I would like to do my historical novel first. Today I've just hired a professional artist to do a montage cover and now I want to get an editor, but I want an editor with past experience doing this sort of thing. I will pay $100 plus a free published copy of the book for this service. I'll even autograph it for you, if you wish :-), and give you an acknowledgement inside the cover. The novel isn't long at about 65,000 words. The theme of the novel is "very LDS," though it is based in Utah, even before Joseph Smith's first vision, in 1812. If anyone is at all interested, please email me and please give me your credentials. Your eyes will be the last who see this novel before it goes to the printer. I think it's already pretty polished, but I want that last "seal of approval" that says it's 98% error free. You can reach me at DarvellHunt@Juno.com. Please don't respond to me on the list or to this posting address, or your message may get lost with the rest of the AML messages. This is a bonified, paid offer for work. Upon selection of an editor, I will send out a copy of the text on a CD in any format that you wish. Thanks, Darvell (P.S. To those who did my Christmas story for me, I GREATLY appreciated it and you will yet get a copy of the book, hopefully by Thanksgiving of this year.) ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 14:34:24 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Movie Rights Linda Adams asks: "So....How does one send a screenplay or dramatic work to Hollywood, in hopes of getting it on the silver screen, WITHOUT getting it ripped off, especially if it's good and therefore ripe for ripping off? Will Tim ever have any recourse? What precautions can be taken?" Well, the issue is a little bit complicated, and it will certainly strike some as splitting hair and harping on semantics, but unfortunately, that's what the law is. Let me try to explain what I have experienced as Hollywood's attitudes towards law and their interpretation to it with respect to screenplays. Also, while it is on a different topic, BJ Rowley shared with us an excellent article the other day about "life story movie rights" with respect to Private Jessica Lynch, which also explains some of these iterations very well. If you did not follow his link and read the article and are interested in this thread, you should do so. So, about Hollywood stealing screenplays. (Let's be clear, I'm a screenwriter and I don't necessarily condone anything I'm about to say, but the statements I'm about to make are very much the belief and M.O. of Hollywood.) First, Hollywood does not steal screenplays. They will, however, steal ideas. (More on this in a second.) The reason that the first statement is true is that they don't want to be sued. They can loose and have lost millions, and these guys are in the business of making millions, not losing it. It's very hard for Hollywood to blatantly steal a screenplay. The reason is that their product is so public. Typically, when somebody steals something, they disappear with it, try and stay out of sight. Naturally: they don't want to get caught. But Hollywood product is specifically designed to be seen by as many people as they can coax into those empty seats, so it is inherently hard to get away with stealing. So by and large, they don't do it. But they will get as close to it as the law allows. And this is how: You cannot copyright an idea. You cannot copyright historical or scientific facts. You cannot copyright themes, plots, structures, research, stereotypes, stock scenes or situations, style, unique words or phrases, literary devices, quotations from the public domain or the interpretation of facts. And again, I'll say it again: YOU CANNOT COPYRIGHT AN IDEA. So, in Tim's case, as I understand it, he sent out a script (which is an original, protectable, copyrightable creation as a whole, which can be stolen), and some producer allegedly liked the idea, but thought he could develop it without buying Tim's script. The difficulty is further compounded by the fact that Tim's script is based on historical facts, factual figures, quotations from the public domain and actual people. All things which cannot be copyrighted or protected in any way. Only Tim's actual lines can be protected; only the integrity of the whole can be considered original to Tim. So this producer, again allegedly, hired some writer to go do research independently and come up with a love story about Shakespeare and Ann. And, you know what, legally, he had every right to do that. Even knowing that another script on the same topic had been done by someone else, it is legal for any of us to go out and do 89 different scripts on the same historical topic. Hey, I have a Martin Handcart Company script. So has Kels Goodman. So has Johnny Garbet. So have 89 other people I don't know about. We are all legal and nobody is infringing on anybody. That's the trouble with history. Then, there is the absolutely true possibility of simultaneous yet independent creation. I can't tell you how many times I have come up with an idea (truly of my own devising) and then later come across the exact same thing in another script. That's why you get two Meteor-Hitting-The-Earth movies, two Mission-To-Mars movies, two Robin-Hood movies in the same year. It happens. Somebody hears that another studio has got a similar script in development, and depending on how far along they are, they both race to get them out into the market first, and you get two similarly themed movies in the same summer. Happens all the time. YOU CANNOT COPYRIGHT AN IDEA. So, Hollywood does not steal screenplays. They don't have to. They already have one just like yours (and they can prove it), or they can steal your idea and go out and make their own version of it. But then, how do you protect yourself? First, recognize that you are not the original creator of any idea you ever had. Someone else already had your idea (I don't care what it is) and that person already has a script just like yours on somebody's desk. Recognize it, live with it. Get over the idea that everyone is stealing from you. I steal every idea I can, and so does everybody else. And Hollywood, which is run predominately by Jews, does not even feel bad about it. Remember, we Christians are all about turn the other cheek, love thy neighbors, etc. But the Jews are all about the Mosaic Law. An eye for an eye, kill thine enemies. Their basic tenant (and they do not loose one second of sleep over it at nights) is that if you have some idea and are too lazy to make it into a movie, and they take your idea and through their own sweat and tears and risk and money do make a movie about it, well tough noogies for you and they're going to heaven! I'm serious. They'll tell you this to your face. So, get over the fact that you have original ideas. You don't. They will have read aspects of your screenplay before, no matter what you write. Second, register and/or otherwise date-protect your original works. Third, record, very meticulously, every script you send out and to whom, and if possible have a return receipt and/or (as is most often the case) a signed release form. This seems ironic, because most release forms say that you waive the right to sue the studio you are releasing your script to, but that's not really true. If you can prove all of the conditions I'll mention below, you signed release doesn't matter a hill of beans. But it does allow you to prove the date they got the script. Now, that's what you do to protect yourself. 1) get over yourself; 2) register (to establish date of creation); and 3) document script delivery to third parties. Once you think someone has stolen your SCRIPT (not your IDEA -- because you can't do anything about that), you have to sue. And this is what the court is going to ask you to prove (and remember, you are the accuser, the burden of proof is in your camp and they are innocent until proven guilty). 1) You have to prove that your script was created BEFORE their script. 2) You have to prove that they HAD A COPY OF YOUR SCRIPT, and that their receipt of this copy of your script also was received BEFORE they came up with their script. 3) You then, here is the kicker, you have to prove SIGNIFICANT SPECIFIC POINTS OF SIMILARITY between the two scripts. I think the legal rule-of-thumb is something like there have to be about 400 exact duplications between the two scripts (and by points of similarity, I'm talking about exact wording) before they will begin to consider a case of theft or plagiarism. So, you can see, it is very hard to prove. If some guy was stupid enough to take your script, change the title and shoot it, he's busted and you just caught him. You'll win every time. But if some guy liked your historical idea, researched it himself, independently created a script like yours, but which is, ultimately, very different in dialogue and everything else that can legally be copyrighted (even though it's got the same basic characters, situations and even outcome), then... well, I'm sad to say, and you can see it coming: What can you do about it? Nothing. No wonder so many of us become cynics. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 21:52:38 GMT From: "Jeffrey Needle" Subject: [AML] Armand MAUSS, _All Abrahams Children_ (Review) Review =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Title: All Abraham's Children Author: Armand L. Mauss Publisher: University of Illinois Press Year Published: 2003 Number of Pages: 343 Binding: Hardback ISBN: 0-252-02803-1 Price: $36.95 Reviewed by Jeffrey Needle Matters of race and ethnicity have been with us throughout the span of recorded history. I'm not aware of any time when the exclusionary impulse has not been a part of the motivating rationale of clan and tribe. Determining who is "in" and who is "out" is often central to tribal definition, and as such merits the attention not just of anthropologists, but of sociologists and religionists as well. Mauss, a sociologist by training, is also a Latter-day Saint, and thus takes a special interest in such matters within his own faith community. Indeed, the subtitle of the present work is "Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage." And Mauss, having studied this subject for many decades, is in a unique position to pull together the research and discussions that have proliferated within Mormonism, especially in light of an ongoing awareness of the weakness of its own historical positions. "All Abraham's Children" focuses on Mormonism's relationship to three major groups: the Lamanites (racial descendants of the rebellious eldest son of Lehi in the Book of Mormon), the Jews, and those of "African lineage." Each study presents its own unique problems, as will be seen shortly. Identifying racial attitudes within Mormonism can be a tricky enterprise. Because Mormonism accepts the idea of "continuing revelation" -- the capacity to clarify or even change direction with a single commandment from the Lord -- it is not surprising that such attitudes will vary over a period of over 150 years. And when one considers the radical shifts in American society during that period, with strong advances not only in race relations but also in our understanding of the nature of revelation and the place of historicity in the revelatory process, it is to be expected that beliefs and attitudes will change. The larger question within Mormonism involves the degree to which social mores and cultural demands impact the beliefs of a church based on revelation. When, for example, the priesthood was opened to all worthy males in 1979, critics questioned whether the change was mandated by God, or by pressures brought on by society and the state, or perhaps a combination of both. And here is where Mauss makes a remarkable contribution to our understanding of these matters. Meticulously researched and, happily, told in an interesting and compact way, Mauss brings us through the complex and sometimes contradictory world of the Mormon journey toward racial understanding. He studies not just the trends within the Church, but the intersection of those trends with the larger society. I believe it is only in this context that his subject can be understood. Mauss begins his treatment with an interesting survey of American attitudes toward its indigenous Indian population. Theories of an Israelite origin of the American Indians were not peculiar to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Such claims were common at the time; Joseph's ideas would not have been so unique. What was different, however, was the esteem in which the Indians ("Lamanites") were held among the Mormons. Indians were bound to be treated better by the Mormons than by others. And even though the relationship between the Indians and the Mormons was not always ideal, on balance, Indians fared much better when united with the Mormons. About half the book is dedicated to the subject of the "Lamanites." He explores the role of scholarship (and pseudo-scholarship) in formulating the "Lamanite identity," a vexing problem in Mormon circles. He likewise shows the pendulum-like swings in Mormonism's attention to the question. It is a fascinating story. Mauss follows with a two-chapter study of Mormonism's attitudes toward Jews, its unique relationship with the Jewish people, and manifestations of anti-semitism within the Mormon community. There is a focus on the peculiar Mormon belief, taught early on but not much mentioned these days, that the blood of coverts to Mormonism undergoes a literal change -- one that physically identifies them with the blood line of the tribe of Ephraim. In this day of DNA and advanced science, such a claim is difficult to support. But it does provide a context for an understanding (in Mauss' words) of the "dual partnership and blood tie" between Mormons and Jews. The second chapter dealing with this subject is basically an historical and statistical overview of Mormon attitudes toward Jews over the years. It contains interesting data and much food for thought. Mauss then deals with the subject of Mormonism and people of color. Here "inspired assumptions" (see below) run rampant. The "curse of Cain" is dealt with in its own chapter, along with efforts to distance itself from the assumptions about black skin that have survived generations of Mormonism. How did the doctrine of "no priesthood for Negroes" develop? Did Joseph Smith himself subscribe to it? What were the results of the official declaration opening the priesthood to all worthy males? And how did Mormonism confront the fluid civil rights issue in the U.S.? Mauss answers all these questions, and more. Stylistically, Mauss begins each chapter with a series of citations from authoritative Mormon voices. In doing so, he illustrates how shifting attitudes accompany shifting times. An example: heading up chapter 3, "From Lamanites to Indians" (page 41), are the following quotes. The first is from Orson Pratt: What says the Book of Mormon in relation to the building up of the New Jerusalem on this continent...? Does not that book say that the Lamanites are to be the principal operators in that important work, and that those who embrace the Gospel from among the Gentiles are to have the privilege of assisting the Lamanites to build up the city called the New Jerusalem? The next (quoted in part) is from Bruce R. McConkie: An occasional whiff of nonsense goes around the Church acclaiming that the Lamanites will build the temple in the New Jerusalem and that Ephraim and others will come to their assistance. How does one account for such a clear discrepancy in the words of two men held in very high regard in their Church's intellectual circles? They can't both be right. And, in fact, McConkie is downright dismissive when referring to an idea promoted by a respected thinker, albeit of a different period. And therein is a key to understanding Mauss' work. If one is searching for a single "Mormon attitude" toward any particular racial group, you simply won't find it. The accepted view changes over the years. New thinkers, new prophets, alter not just attitudes, but the underlying "facts" that inform those attitudes. Consider for example, the Church's position concerning the "Lamanites." Given that no generally accepted view of Book of Mormon archaeology has ever been promulgated by the Church, and given that the Lamanites are described as being descendants of some of the Book of Mormon peoples, it would appear to be bit of a sticky thing to clearly identify any particular racial group as "Lamanite." But despite general agreement on Book of Mormon archaeology, certain peoples have been, at times, identified as "Lamanites," the American Indians being a prominent example. In order to make the facts fit the theory, some scholars have had to promulgate a view of where the Book of Mormon lands are. But nothing of certainty has come forth as of yet. Absent particular revelation, Mormonism has nurtured a particular process that I am calling "inspired assumption." It can be seen in ward meetings, Sunday schools, Institute classes, in fact, virtually anywhere the Saints are gathered. Anecdotal evidence suggests that attitudes among the Mormons are often defined by such "inspired assumptions." Lacking a trained clergy, such gatherings are often fertile ground for baseless teachings and giant leaps of understanding. Mauss does a masterful job of pointing to the existence of assumptions as a continuing problem in the Church. For example, note these brief excerpts from his chapter 9, "The Campaign to Cast Off the Curse of Cain": It is not clear how much the lingering racial myths in the Mormon religious heritage affect missionary work or the congregational relationships between blacks and whites. (p. 261) To repudiate any of the cherished religious lore of their immediate ancestors seems to some Mormons, especially the older ones, to be almost a repudiation of the grandparents themselves, to say nothing of *their* teachers, who might have walked with God. (p. 262) Further reading in this, perhaps the best chapter in the book, studies the effects of both religious, and family, legends in the perpetuation of stereotypes and the sometimes-astonishing longevity of cherished, but wrong, beliefs. At heart, Mauss is a sociologist. And so it should come as no surprise that his focus throughout the work is on the interaction of society with Church doctrine and practice. His conclusions may be a bit discomfiting to some Latter-day Saints who have heretofore not studied out the issues as carefully as has Mauss. And, to be sure, the temptation to make the book larger and more complex must have been overwhelming. As a scholar and a student, Mauss no doubt had a considerable body of data from which to choose. But his goal was to be understandable, not necessarily exhaustive. And he accomplishes this very nicely. The non-scholar will find this book readable and intriguing; the scholar is given sufficient reference with which he or she may pursue any particular angle of study. I'm very glad to have read this book. It is an important addition to the corpus of writing concerning Mormonism and racial identity. It approaches its subject with objectivity and with courage. And readers will find herein a cogent and understandable study of a problem that continues to vex the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, written by one of their own, from a standpoint of sound scholarship and deep respect. I highly recommend this book. It's fully worth the cover price. - ----------------------------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #27 *****************************