From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #45 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, May 2 2003 Volume 02 : Number 045 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 09:43:06 -0700 From: "Jongiorgi Enos" Subject: Re: [AML] Copyright Law and Horizon LauraMaery (Gold) Post was (understandably) confused about Linda's recent dilemna with Horizon. She asks: > "If Horizon had *reprinted* your book and sold it (which, from your account, > I gather they didn't do), I would see a huge lawsuit. But if the book was > published legally by another party, and Horizon then legally obtained the > physical copies of that book, I'm not following how this violates copyright > law. They sold the lot to you, so I'm observing it was theirs to sell, yes? But under what conditions? Linda sold her rights to the publisher under strict conditions as spelled out in her contract. That publisher had the right to exploit her intellectual property which happened to be printed on "paper towels" (to continue with the original metaphor) which they (just like Motorola, to mix the metaphors) owns. Therein lies the wrinkle. They paid for the paper, publishing and binding, and so are likely to want some kind of compensation for that, but they are limited in thier rights to sell that paper and binding, based on their contract with the author. In the Horizon case (as it has been described, I have no insider knowledge other than what's been published here on the list), Horizon acquired books (bulk paper stock, the "towels" in other words), but they did not acquire the contract which gave them the right to sell them. Contracts, under British law as well, are, under certain conditions, commodities and can be assigned, purchased, transfered, etc. So, the new publisher acquired paper but not the rights to sell the intellectual property printed on that paper. Since they owned the paper (they acquired it as bulk inventory transfer), they had the rights to destroy that paper, but not sell it. They recognized that, and so had the option to take a total write-off on her stock, or get somthing out of them. So effectively, they held Linda's books hostage in order to get something out of them. Buy these back from us or we'll just get rid of them. Or, you can give us the rights to sell them. Linda didn't want to give them the rights to sell them, didn't want all those printed books to go to waste, and so opted to pay the ransom instead. The confusion about this unusual scenario, is that we often see resale books in used book shops all over the U.S. But, of course, these books were already purchased once and royalties paid to the respective authors. THEN, yes, they become like the TV set or the paper towel and can be resold, traded, given away, etc. But Linda's books in question were created and then the conditions of who held the rights to do what with them changed and they found themselves in a legal limbo. Linda owned the rights to what was printed on the page, Horizon owned the paper. A very interesting case. > Are you saying you were gypped > out of royalty payments? But there would *be* no royalty payments due on > books sold back to the author...or so *my* contracts say. No, its even more subtle than that. Linda is saying that Horizon did not have the right to pay her royalty payments. For example, if I steal one of your works, make a bunch of copies, then go out and sell them, then I show up at your door and say, oh, by the way, I sold a lot of your stuff without you knowing or approving it, and here is 10% of what I made as your royalty. You would certainly have the right to be freaked out. You'd take them to court and in court, they'd tell the judge, what's the big deal? We paid her a royalty?! Getting paid is not the issue. The issue is rights. Horizon had no right to sell or pay royalties or collect anything or do anything with the book printed on the paper they inherited. They had the right to destroy the books or try to obtain the rights. They could not obtain the rights from Linda, so their only other option was to get rid of the books legally. The only way to do that was to shred them, or to sell them to the author, which is sneaky, because that's the only person on the planet Horizon could "sell" them to without getting sued. No, they don't pay a royalty on the sale, no they don't get in trouble, because they are selling to the copyright holder, and yes they get a little something for the books instead of writing that paper stock off as a total loss. Hope that helps making a confusing situation a little bit clearer. Jongiorgi Enos - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:12:31 -0700 From: "Maxwell, Frank" Subject: [AML] UDALL, _The Forgotten Founders: Rethinking the History of the Old West_ =46ormer Arizona congressman Stewart Udall will be on CSPAN2 this Saturday.= = It will be a re-airing of a speech he gave about his new book, "The = =46orgotten Founders: Rethinking the History of the Old West." As you can = see from the Booktv.org description below, the book may be of interest to = many of us. I've already started reading a copy from my local library, and= = I recommend it, especially the sections describing his own and his wife's = great-grandparents, one of whom was involved in the Mountain Meadows = Massacre. Regards, =46rank Maxwell ************************** History on Book TV a look at nonfiction history books On Saturday, May 3 at 8:00 am (Eastern time) [on CSPAN2] The Forgotten Founders: Rethinking the History of the Old West Stewart Udall=20 Description: From Tattered Cover Bookstore in Denver, Colorado, author and = =66ormer politician Stewart Udall talks about his latest book, "The = =46orgotten Founders: Rethinking the History of the Old West." The book = takes a look at the history of the American west from the perspective of th= e= everyman. Mr. Udall, a former four-term congressman and secretary of the = interior from 1961 until 1969, wrote the book because he felt that the = notion of the American west that many people have, of gunslingers and = cowboys v. Indians, is an incorrect one. Instead, the author writes in a = series of essays that the people he believes to be the heroes of the old = west, are the hardworking and religious settlers of the homesteads. Mr. = Udall tells the story of his own great-grandparents who were Mormon settler= s= of the west. The author is introduced by his nephew, Congressman Mark Udal= l= from Colorado, and after the event the author answers questions from = members of the audience. Author Bio: Stewart Udall is a former four-term Democratic congressman from= = Arizona and served as secretary of the interior from 1961 until 1969. He is= = the author of numerous books including "To the Inland Empire" and "The Myth= s= of August." Publisher: Island Press 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, = DC 20009=20 ********************* This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, = and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any = review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto)= = by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, = please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original = and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 23:10:52 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors Justin Halverson wrote: > If I am "forced" by a book to think something "against my will," I call > that book "easy"--I don't have to do any work. The book gives me all the > ideas, and I can't work at all, since I "wouldn't have chosen to think > [those thoughts] on my own." Painting a reader into a corner is *not* > challenging or ultimately beneficial to the reader--no matter how > interesting or good or wonderful or necessary to salvation or an > understanding of the human condition your thought is. > > If the reader has to think what you want him or her to think--and he or she > does, because, as you rightly point out--they're trapped. That's why I > began my response by explaining as clearly as I could (since I was much > more concerned with the message than the language), that your analogy > applies "if you want to limit the literary experience to I thought of. Isn't it neat?>. If you want to trap your reader into a > single, clearly identifiable, unequivocal reading of your work, that's > great. I won't deny that I really like and need those sorts of novels from > time to time--for the same reason that I enjoy watching "Law and Order" or > summer action movies." Would that I had such power, to force people to think certain thoughts and no others. I guess it's the power Lucifer thought he had when he suggested he could save every person--I don't know how else he was gonna do it. No, I'm only talking about leading people down the primrose path to confront thoughts it may never have occurred to them to confront before, or that they've resisted confronting. What they do with that situation, once they come to realize it's happening, is entirely up to them. Some will reject it and throw my book against the wall. Some will forge ahead, but reject the thoughts I'm presenting. Some will consider the thoughts, then come to their own conclusions. Some of those conclusions wil be to agree with me, some won't. But except for those benighted souls who throw the book against the wall (and I'm hoping that my wonderful, effortless prose and exciting plot line will keep that from happening), at least I'll have seduced people into considering something they hadn't considered before, regardless of what they decide to do with those thoughts. That's all I care about as an author. > 1) That medium and message are radically separate. If they ever do touch > each other, the interaction, like the interface between a tire's contact > patches and the road, is extremely small. They are separate. An author's particular manifestation of a message becomes intimately integrated with the medium the author chooses to communicate in (unless he's a poor author), but the message could be communicated in any number of media. Just take an idea and ask different authors to write about it and see how radically different the stories will be. > 2) That difficult prose "constantly breaks down." It doesn't. Sometimes it > does, but then it's no good. Perhaps you got the impression that I'm > defending all difficult writing. I'm not. I don't like difficult prose if > it "constantly breaks down." But good writing, even if it is difficult, > does (by definition) *not* break down. Well, for all I know, "prose that breaks down" is the definition that I'm using for difficult. Remember, I haven't read Gene Wolfe, so I don't know what I'd think of his prose. I'm taking an educated guess based on the fact that one individual, J. Scott Bronson, whose intelligence and artistic taste I have high regard for, couldn't finish Wolfe without great effort--couldn't finish him at all the first time through. That to me is prose that breaks down. I simply don't think it needs to be that way. For all I know, once I read Wolfe, I may love his style. > 3) That a good reading experience presents itself before you like a > landscape to be oohed and aahed over through a window instead of touched, > tasted, smelled--even heard!--in addition to being seen. Since we all seem to be indulging in a bit of metaphor stretching since I brought up the car anology, let me remind you that I can at any time stop the car, step out, and touch, taste, smell, and hear anything I want. Then I can climb back into my comfortable car drive on. The somewhat forced reading analogy to this is, I can put the book down, meditate to my heart's desire in all sorts of deep and complex ways about ideas I just read, then go back and continue reading the easy, comfortable prose that is transporting amazing concepts to me. > Perhaps I may appropriate your metaphor, and compare good though difficult > (poetic would be another synonym) prose to a well-used, resonant, > well-weighted classic cruiser, whose owner has spent countless hours tuning > up and rebuilding from parts that, though they've been used in other cars > and might seem ridiculous, mis-proportioned, or out of place when viewed > close up--as solitary parts of most arguments--work just as they should, or > even just as they weren't expected to, when taken as a whole. This car's > owner/driver could be both reader or writer, since good prose, when it is > difficult, often requires the reader to contribute as much as the writer. I say easy prose requires the same thing. Easy prose just makes the reader do it over ideas, not words. And that in my opinion is the superior way to do it. > with writing and reading, *both* types of > vehicles are great at times. Sometimes I just want to hand over the keys, > sit back, and enjoy the ride. I take great pleasure, too, though, out of > driving in a vehicle I've actually had a hand in building and that will > probably break down a couple times along the way Definitely a difference in taste here. I have never enjoyed the experience of having my vehicle break down. > I *didn't* say that. I said that a book that only produces thoughts its > readers are "trapped" into is not challenging nor thought-provoking, and > therefore not worth a second read. Fortunately, that's not what I meant. Probably because my prose wasn't clear enough (he he). I meant I trap people into _considering_ thoughts they've not considered before. It's patently impossible for me to trap them into thinking only certain thoughts. I'd be Master of the Universe if I could do that. - -- 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: Thu, 01 May 2003 09:46:59 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Eric Samuelsen wrote: > Last weekend, I had the great honor of attending the annual Mormon Arts Retreat. This is the latest iteration of the late, lamented Mormon Arts Festival, which was a wonderful idea that Doug Stewart and Rob Paxton worked like coal miners to create, which finally died, I think largely because putting it on every year was so exhausting. Or maybe it's because they don't promote it well enough. I would have loved to attend, but I didn't know it was going on. Or is it a closed function, by invitation only? > Then came the after-dinner speaker. A wonderful choreographer, Pat Debenham, talked about ways in which our talents can become the means by which Satan tempts us, lures us away from God. He urges us to think of our artistic gifts in more mundane terms than we are used to, to essentially repudiate the romantic notion of the Artist-Genius whose connection with nature, or with the Super Sensuous as revealed in nature, is so much richer than the connection ordinary people have to it that He (the artist) leads us to God. (Pat didn't say all that; I'm interpolating.) What Pat did say is that a lot of young LDS artists leave the Church, and in part it's because we artists take ourselves too seriously. Art is not a calling, it's a job, he argued. I don't mind dumping the romantic conception of the Artist Genius, but sorry, Art is a calling to me; if it weren't, I'd quit and do something else with my life. As for young artists leaving the Church, well, it's hardly surprising! , when LDS culture (together with American culture) is in many ways anti-art. You are right, Pat is wrong (absolute enough for you?) As with other professions (doctors, lawyers, politicans come to mind), artists can succumb to a debilitating hubris, but art is much more than plumbing. (Yikes, there I go contradicting myself when I said art is like plumbing. But I'm allowed to do that--I'm an artist.) I have never been inspired, challenged, disturbed, treated to new insights on the human condition, or even entertained by plumbing. LDS culture most certainly is driving artists away--and intellectuals--and scholars. But I've already harped on that in a message I wrote eralier this morning that I hope sees the light of day, so I won't elaborate now. > Kiss is a play I wrote about a husband and wife, driving down a Nevada highway. He's driving her to work, her first day on her new job. About half way through the play you realize that her job is as a prostitute. She's LDS, and active, and she's going to work at the Mustang Ranch. > > I wrote the play for lots of reasons, one of which is that it's true. A good percentage of the women who work in the Nevada brothel industry are LDS, some of them reasonably active, a few even temple recommend holding. (One presumes that they've been less than forthcoming in that interview). That's an amazing fact, an astounding and shocking fact, but it's true; I've read the research. > > More than that, I think Mormon art can and should go to the darkest places we can imagine. I don't think it has to do that, but it can; it's okay to. I think the play talks about rationalization, and the way we can rationalize almost anything. I think the play talks about two people, a husband and wife, who really desperately need the atonement in their lives. And I think that Mormon art is a really big tent, and that at a retreat like this, it's valuable to push the boundaries a little. > > Well, maybe so, but there were folks who walked out, and I think the overall reaction wasn't particularly positive. We'd seen a lot of overtly religious art, and I think there was a strong feeling among many that my piece was inappropriate, and even damaging to a good spirit that had attended the event. I regret that very much. I regret your regret. You felt the regret because you're a nice guy and care about people, but I think the reaction to your play is an illustration of the very thing you and I are talking about. Your art was considered "inappropriate" because it wasn't feel-good. You shouldn't have written it. Bleah! And it was fellow artists making the judgment. Megableah! - -- 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: Thu, 1 May 2003 16:01:54 -0600 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] RE: Introductions: Dianna Graham From: Fred C Pinnegar >I can think of worse places to wash ashore; for example, anyplace east of the Rockies. When we >moved to Orem from Kalamazoo, my 4-year-old boy said to me, "Where are we going, Daddy," and I >said, "We're going to the mountains of Ephriam to dwell." >I guess I'm just a country boy. Orem is lovely, isn't it? Especially when you're just blocks away from Orem Center Stage. :) (Buttering up to Thom and Scott) East of the Rockies? Heaven. I doubt life will take us back there, but somewhere in Connecticutt sounds like a dream to me. Alas, I do not forsee David's future in production taking us in that direction. Maybe Chicago? If only. Looks like Cali will have to be the place someday (if they'll take us). Dianna Graham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 18:26:55 EDT From: RichardDutcher@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) eric_samuelsen@byu.edu writes: > I kind of wrecked the whole event, frankly. I brought in a new play I'd > written, a very short one, and that was my contribution to Show and Tell. > As Eric mentioned, I was also at the Retreat. I disagree strongly that he "wrecked" the event. His play, "Kiss," was one of the highlights for me. My wife, Gwen, liked it, too. When Eric writes that "there were folks that walked out," that's not exactly representative of the truth. One folk walked out (very emotional), then her husband and one of her best friends walked out a moment or so later to be sure she was okay. So he only lost one audience member out of, what, a hundred. That's one percent of the audience. So stop bragging, Eric. Surely you can do better than 1%. Richard Dutcher - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 21:35:33 -0600 From: "Annette Lyon" Subject: [AML] D. Michael's Film Lab 3: Twisted Time Lines Not that it may matter to anyone wanting to attend the film lab, but Sliding Doors is rated PG-13, not R. Annette Lyon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 21:52:52 -0600 (MDT) From: Fred C Pinnegar Subject: [AML] RE: Miracles Thom said: I get real antsy when people start suggesting that miracles are involved in these kinds of things. Because the implication is that somehow God listens more to Elizabeth's parents than he does to another family. And I don't like the other answer I usually receive: well, God doesn't answer everybody's prayers the same way. Then on what basis does he choose to intervene in Elizabth's life but no one else's? I believe in miracles, but not this kind. I believe in the miracle of a family's love that can stay strong throughout such a horrible ordeal. I believe in the miracle of how humans kind find a way to go on through dark tragedy, even if their loved ones never come back? I believe in the miracle of how love can transend death. Reply: These are unitarian miracles which Emerson would have been proud to report. As far as I can tell in the literature associated with miracles, a miracle requires at least two elements: an event in which there is a divine manifestation and an interpretation of that event as a divine manifestation: neither one of which appears in the examples you offer. To be sure, there is lots of generalized love going on in your examples, but human love is something which can be learned and practiced freely, and it is not in the same category as raising the dead and the ministering of angels. Show us a definition of miracles which takes into account the restored gospel as a viable force among us equivalent to that which is talked about in scripture. Fred Pinnegar - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 23:00:18 -0600 From: Sam Payne Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) Eric Samuelsen mentioned peripherally, in a post about the Mormon Arts Retreat: > a nineteen year old kid named Kalai, > who is the next Cat Stevens, except that Kalai is fifty times better on guitar > than Cat Stevens. I love Cat Stevens, and loved Kalai's music even more. Kalai, by the way, is a member of the Timpanogos Singer-Songwriter Alliance (TSSA). His music can be heard, certainly, on his own recordings, but also on the TSSA compilation album "Sidewalk Serenade." His tune on that compilation, called "Fading Out," is quite good. A standout. > And some wonderful hammered dulcimer music from a husband/wife musical pair, the Schultzes. Some of my very coolest childhood memories are of my folks playing with Tom and Gael Shults in our living room. They've been playing for a million years, and can be heard and seen on Kurt Bestor/Sam Cardon's "Innovators" album (and the accompanying concert video). Tom is also a freak-out brilliant songwriter. His fingerstyle guitar playing is terrific, and his songs, though instantly recognizeable as Tom Shults songs, are utterly unlike anything you've ever heard before. He released two CD's simultaneously awhile ago, called "Left" and "Right." One of Tom's songs appears on the same TSSA compilation mentioned above. The thing about his songs, too, is that their effect is cumulative. You might could shrug off one Tom Shults song, but listen to five in a row and there will open up a rich and strange little space in your brain that you won't easily get closed again. I keep remembering odd Tom Shults lyrics during Seminary lessons. Tom Shults lyrics and episodes of The Simpsons. Sam Payne - ---------------------------- (Visit http://www.sampayne.com today for a glance at "Railroad Blessing," the new record!) LDS internet radio - www.kzion.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 01:08:50 EDT From: gkeystone@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Miracles Paris Anderson, I loved your post on miricles! I don't understand how one makes great brownies so I guess even sugar filled cookies that I don't eat very much but still love the taste of qualifies as a miracle. I recently read a book called the Hunger for Ecstasy that has as one of its major premises the idea that we all have the ability to learn to be filled with joy to the point of ecstasy more of the time. Key to doing this is to live in "the presence" of God by being fully observant and attentive with gratitude in the present moment. Is it a miracle when we are only occassionlally "surprised by joy" to use a C. S. Lewis phrase? Is it a miracle we feel joy at all or a negative miracle that most people live such sad lives most of the time? Brigham Young said, again as best as I remember the idea, that it is no greater miracle to raise the dead than to actually communicate with another. I think I fall into the miracles abound all around group of people. But I agree that not everone has to see things as I do. I've noticed an interesting thing in connection with miracles I'm wondering if others have also noticed in life or in literature. That is: it seems to me after years of pondering a particular great and obvious miracle in our son years ago that the miracle occured because of several factors. First I was in an appointed place at an appointed time. Second as most significantly it seems to have occured because of gratitude and joy in me before the miracle. This seems the reverse of the normal cause and effect of our ration minds. But is it possible that joy and gratitude are mother of not only all other virtues but also miracles? This might make an interesting subject for a book. Someday maybe I'll write one. Title: The Miracles of (or from) Joy and Gratitude. Glen Sudbury - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 01:11:53 -0400 From: "Amelia Parkin" Subject: [AML] KUSHNER, _Angels in America_ Dianna Graham wrote, speaking of "dirt" and "dregs" in literature: "Millennium Approaches from Angels in America was dirt to me for a few reasons. Well crafted dirt, but still dirt in my eyes." Dianna, may I ask for some reasons? I'm just curious. I actually love the entire play _Angels in America_. I wrote my masters thesis about the play. I've probably read it more times than I've read any other single piece of literature. the play actually professes some of the teachings that are inherent and important to Mormon doctrine. teachings about progress and hope and faith. beautiful truths. and i believe that with a close reading, a reader begins to understand things that an audience never will because of the innate differences between the experience of watching a play and reading a play (though watching the play will give you interesting perspective that couldn't be gained by reading it). I've never really had the chance to discuss the play with other latter-day saints very much. i'm sure many would object based purely on content. but my objections have little to do with that and much more to do with kushner's treatment of his mormon characters, both male and female. especially female. he creates double trajectories for all of his mormon characters. one trajectory of development can be seen in performance. the second, more subtle one can only be seen with a close reading. when read closely, joe is a much less villainous character. with a fast presentation of joe, a single presentation where one scene rapidly follows another, his anguish gets buried under his seemingly thoughtless treatment of his wife and his willingness to abandon all of his beliefs, life, etc. but when you read the play and think about the careful construction of the play both in its narrative and in its development through time on the stage, you begin to realize that joe's life is fraught with inability to reconcile all that he is. and kushner treats joe's mother hannah even worse than joe. she follows a trajectory of being liberated. of being somehow freed from her constraining mormon, patriarchal roots. and she becomes the real prophetic voice by the end of the play (interestingly enough teaching some important mormon doctrine). but when you stop and trace what happens to her you watch as one man denounces her as a mother. and immediately she adopts another man as her son. kushner doesn't free her. she remains unchanged, in spite of the appearance of a positive character development. in spite of these very real objections i have to this piece of art (and there are others and this email is a very superficial treatment of my problems with the play), i love it as a work of art. it is a work that will substantiate many readings. a work that will ask very difficult questions of mormons and non-mormons alike. it draws fascinating parallels between our social, ecological, political, religious, and psychological worlds. parallels that have the potential to drive discussion and discovery. does it contain bad language? yes. quite a bit of it. does it portray behaviors and acts that i believe are wrong? yes. it does lots that i could see as objectionable. but i believe it is a moral piece. it is a work of art that makes a statement about the moral tenor of our world. and, although i cringed on my first readings of the play at the way kushner appropriates mormon history and joseph smith's experience, i do not believe he treated the sacred lightly. i think he used it very seriously, knowing full well what he was doing. i do not seek out or enjoy art that makes light of things i consider sacred. i don't think kushner does this. i think he very carefully uses a sacred heritage to illustrate his point, to make his viewers and his readers think about their world and hopefully understand it better. of course, my understanding of his intent and his work has been enhanced by my research and by reading interviews and such wherein kushner discusses the play. but i truly believe that this play is an amazing work of art. and i believe that in order to appreciate it, we need to get beyond the first shock of reading our religious heritage in such a light and really think about what he's getting at. amelia parkin _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 23:54:25 -0700 From: "Travis K. Manning" Subject: [AML] LDS Radio Programming I have a question for AML-listers regarding radio programming ideas for a local public station that's getting going fall 2003 here in Spokane, Washington. I've been encouraged to submit a proposal for programming content. The station is small (100 watt?) sort of like Salt Lake's KRCL, I believe, a true community sort of radio station. I was thinking of perhaps doing a half hour or hour weekly show where I read Mormon literature, be it plays, radio theatre, fiction, nonfiction, etc. But, I only have minimal experience in radio, having interned with Salt Lake's KUER a couple years ago. But, I think it would/could be really fun, if anything just for the experience of going through the whole decision making process, programming planning, and then, perhaps, getting an opportunity to read my own work (perhaps some of yours too, of course). Lastly, I don't want to step on the Church's toes, you know, I don't want to necessarily use the church's name, yet I want it to still have "Mormon-related" content. I don't necessarily want to approach the Church's PR machine, i.e. speak with the Public Affairs' national radio person, Kim Farah, and have her tell me what I can and can't do. On the other hand, perhaps the Church's Public Affairs dept. could give me some good advice. Or should I just go for it.... What do you think? Travis Manning - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 May 2003 00:35:27 -0700 From: Harlow S Clark Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon Arts Retreat (Community of Artists) On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:23:57 -0600 "Eric Samuelsen" writes: > As for young artists leaving the Church, well, it's hardly > surprising, when LDS culture (together with American > culture) is in many ways anti-art. O come on, Eric. Did you miss the recent Congressional debate on the Literature and Culture bill? There was a huge push for pome and fiction and essay (or creative non-fiction for the hoity fartsy group) subsidies (subsidies for other arts too, but as a writer I followed that part of the bill), a huge call for tariffs on imported art and literature so that our artists could compete on a level playing field with artists from countries with massive public funding for the arts. And you missed it? Of course there were detractors (and dehorsedrawnplows) who felt tariffs are just another name for protectionism, that _tariff_ is just a euphemism propogated by the all-powerful art lobby, and that art ought to compete on its own merits without gummint subsidies just like farm goods and the airline/airplane industry do. Well, I guess there are always naysayers, but we should admit the esteem our culture (and subculture) has for artists and the arts and built that esteem, rather than making snideremarks about our culture. Hollow Cluck ABA (also bocking as) h.s. (cummings) clark ________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 02 May 2003 08:28:14 -0400 From: Tony Markham Subject: [AML] Re: Membership on AML-List David and (or) Dianna Graham wrote: > I'm not well-read on Mormon lit, so I can't comment on the quality thereof. > I'm a slow reader and have tons of other artists to go through as well. > Maybe that makes me unqualified for this list. Hmmm... Yikes! There's qualifications? Who knew???? Tony Markham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 07:21:53 -0600 (MDT) From: Ivan Angus Wolfe Subject: Re: [AML] In Defense of Obscurity > A case in point is Shakespeare, who became "respectable" to the > literary community exactly when his language became obscure. But not > because Shakespeare himself used obscure language. Quite to the > contrary, he wrote in the vernacular to the time. Shakespeare became > obscure because of the inevitable evolution of the language. This > explains why Shakespeare is often more "difficult" than the more > formal language of the KJV--vernacular evolves much faster. > Eugene Woodbury That's only oartly true - People did not regularly speak in iambic pentameter and blank verse. Gene Wolfe actually has a few characters in The Book of the New Sun speak in Blank verse - all of them aliens. Why? He said it was because when they spoke in blank verse, it seemed unnatural to the reader, making it more alien (while still understandable). - --ivan wolfe - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 07:25:02 -0700 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] STANSFIELD, _The Gable Faces East_ (Review) I appreciate your thoughtful review. What I may have missed is any LDS content in the book. Could it be that Deseret Book just pulled the book because there was no Mormon content? Forgive me if I missed something. katie@aros.net wrote: > > Stansfield, Anita. _The Gable Faces East_. Covenant, 1999, 499 pp, $14.95. > > Reviewed by Katie Parker > - -- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 09:01:47 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: RE: [AML] Copyright Law and Horizon > > I'm confused by your situation, Linda. Maybe I'm missing something? >(LauraMaery) Jacob: >You're partially right, but looking at it in the wrong way. For consumers, >books *are* like any other consumer product--something you're able to buy >and sell and loan to others as much as you wish. The part you're missing >is the obligation the publisher has to the author. Thank you for explaining the concept so well, Jacob. If those of you with book contracts take a look at them, usually there is a transfer clause included, meaning the contract can be sold or transferred to a new owner. (Think how the bank can sell your mortgage w/out needing your permission; same idea). Generally, however, the contract also carries a clause that says if the contract is not *previously* sold to a third party, it expires when business operations cease, reverting all rights to the author. It can't be sold or transferred *after* the company goes out of business, because that contract has ceased to exist. Linda Linda Adams adamszoo@sprintmail.com http://www.alyssastory.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #45 *****************************