From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #226 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 Tuesday, November 25 2003 Volume 02 : Number 226 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:49:42 -0500 From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: Re: [AML] Deseret News: "South Park" Mormons It was a pretty funny episode, but took a very negative view of early Mormon history -- essentially saying that everyone who believed Joseph Smith's claims were dumb, but skeptics like Martin Harris's wife were smart for doubting. Modern Mormons come off looking pretty good, if you consider a preternaturally nice, happy family as an accurate view of modern Mormons. Eric D. Dixon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:38:21 -0700 From: Margaret Blair Young Subject: [AML] On marketing a static product [moderator comment: Until _Standing on the Promises_ gets its own website, information about the series, including links to prior AML and other book reviews, can be found on the Mormon Literature Website at http://mormonlit.lib.byu.edu/lit_work.php?w_id=3D4179] Darius Gray and I have decided to become much more proactive in marketing our trilogy. I thought that the AML list might benefit from our discoveries, triumphs and failures--all of which are pending. So this is the first post of many as we undertake to sell _Standing on the Promises_ in a way that Deseret Book hasn't. We've realized that our books face some real problems with marketing under the Deseret Book paradigm. So the first issue is to identify the problem. Why haven't the books sold as well as we and Deseret Book had anticipated? My guesses follow, but if anyone has other insights, I'd be very interested. 1) Our observations at book signings suggest that there is an interest gap among white Mormons. Those who buy our books are usually involved with the black community in some way (including by having been born black) or have a keen intellectual interest in what we're doing. In the Deseret Book marketing plan, the question revolves around how we can pique interest in the white Mormon community. Catalogue advertising has not worked. Deseret Book has done for our product exactly what it does for others and had expected that sales would reflect their effort. Such has not been the case. What other avenues remain to get their targeted audience interested? Or should this audience even be considered the target audience? Is there a bigger, better audience which we should aim for in our independent efforts? I'd say yes. 2) Our books are not easy reads and some may even consider the last two volumes faith-challenging. So how do we find audiences willing to read hard books? Does the Deseret Book label put off some potential readers who might assume that our books represent the Mormon sugar-coating of the race issue? How can we move past that little barrier? I really do believe a large audience is THERE but hasn't been tapped. Over and over, we hear the question, "Why haven't I heard of these books?" My sense of things is that only Deseret Book/Seagull customers are likely to have heard of our work because they will have seen the catalogues. So what resources can we tap to get the news out to an interested group and to invite other readers who might assume that our job as Deseret Book authors has been to whitewash? When I went to the Barnes and Noble website, I found it very interesting that an ex-Mormon had posted a very favorable review of our work. He said it helped him understand the dedication of Mormons to their faith. 3) Do we need a website outside of Deseret Book? I have concluded that we do. I personally find the Deseret Book website difficult ot navigate. I would be surprised if anyone discovered our books on that website without already knowing they existed. And they'd have to know further that they are categorized under historical fiction, not under fiction and not under history. I suspect that those who want to find out about us would have an easier time going to Amazon.com or Barnesandnoble.com (both of which have incomplete listings of our books as of now, but will be complete soon.) So, there are some problems I've identified and some questions I'm asking myself at this point. We're at the beginning of our journey to actively market our books. We've even spoken to a generous member of the list who gave us some excellent advice. And I'm buying books about publicity. I am convinced that e-mails and letters to radio stations and newspapers have little effect without footwork, and that the most likely success will be generated by good connections. So we're identifying our good connections and beginning to work through them. I'll keep the list updated. Successes thus far: We recently taped a show for KBYU's "From the Podium", which will be broadcast later (not sure when). That's a start. I am working on this project daily. I should list as failures my various e-mails to newspapers, radio and television shows--never answered. How many of those actually get through to someone who can do a thing? My guess is that the percentage is less than 1%. I can see the need for agents and publicists and have considered using the agent I used at an earlier point in my career, but since our books are already published, I doubt she' be interested. Certainly, if knew everything about LDS publishing which I know now, I would've used my agent. So the question is, can an author do for herself/himself what an agent or publicist would do? I guess we'll see. Margaret Young - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:36:08 -0600 From: "Patricia Wiles" Subject: RE: [AML] My Web Page Hello-- I joined this list a few weeks ago, and this is my first post. If=20 Someone does plan to do a links page, we would appreciate having our site listed. http://www.latterdayauthors.com/ Our group started this site about two months ago. (You can read about=20 Them here: http://www.latterdayauthors.com/about/about.htm) The writers who work on this site with me are a joy to be associated with--some of them are members of this list. Our goal, as listed on the site, is to provide "information for all writers, with inspiration and support based on the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Our site is based more on nurturing and encouragement, rather than a critical, literary focus. One of the problems most writers have, whether new or established, is getting started and enduring to the completion of a project. We hope through our site to offer that needed support.=20 Building a website has been one of the most challenging things I've ever done, basically because I knew nothing about it when I started. The=20 initial site looked kind of rough, but I was just glad to get something up that worked. With a little more sweat and brain drain I "remodeled" the site over the weekend, and while I still have much to learn at least now the site navigates much better and looks a little more professional. We have a great writer's forum, with lots of interesting topics and discussion. A group of writers have just finished our first Book in a Week event (thanks to Cindy Bezas, who was the "mother hen" that gathered the chicks under her wing). The results have been extraordinary, with a wonderful sense of camaraderie among the participants and a collective feeling of accomplishment for all the work produced. You are invited to visit, read some of our articles and forum postings,=20 And even submit articles for publication on the site (you can read our submission guidelines for more information). The site is a labor of=20 love, so unfortunately we can't offer pay for articles. We are basically a 24/7 writers conference where the rooms are always open for writers, whether they need to learn or are willing to share their knowledge. Patricia Wiles Executive Editor, latterdayauthors.com Member National Society of Newspaper Columnists Member Society of Children's Book Writers and Illustrators =20 - -----Original Message----- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Marny Parkin Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:08 AM To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [AML] My Web Page I have a web page, but it has nothing about me on it. It is a=3D20 bibliography of speculative fiction written by and about Mormons=3D20 (novels, short stories, poetry, and nonfiction). If anyone knows of something I've missed, please let me know! Marny Parkin www.MormonSF.org - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:17:23 -0500 From: "Richard Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] Mormon speech patterns I can identify a number of speech patterns - stresses - etc that are western regional and even specific regional (like the harses that live in the borns in parts of Utah) but they don't seem specifically Mormon. There are vocabulary and grammatical constructs that really are Mormon and some of them go back many years. Who but a Mormon would ever say "I feel to tell you. . . . " but you will find it in one of three conference talks. The linguistic thing that drives me bonkers is that in Mormon language, "immorality" means only one thing, sexual misconduct. To me and almost everyone I know (as one who has avoided the areas where mormon culture is prevalent all his life)immorality takes in so many areas of life. Richard B. Johnson, Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important- and most valuable. Http://www.PuppenRich.com - -----Original Message----- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of JanaRiess@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 9:30 AM To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [AML] Mormon speech patterns In a message dated 11/17/03 4:12:18 PM,=3D20 owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com writes: > There are specifically Mormon speech patterns? What are they? > > ~Jamie Laulusa > This is Utah, not just Mormon, but how about: "I fill of the Spirit"? Fillings, nothing more than fillings . . . . Jana Riess - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:03:52 -0800 (PST) From: "R.W. Rasband" Subject: [AML] Andrew Sullivan on "Angels In America" In what is the opening shot of what is sure to be a heated debate on HBO's "Angels In America", Andrew Sullivan disputes the play's historical accuracy in "The New Republic": http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=fisking&s=sullivan111803 ===== R.W. Rasband Heber City, UT rrasband@yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:00:49 -0500 From: "C.S. Bezas" Subject: RE: [AML] Options for our conferences I also would be very interested in being able to purchase CD recordings of each seminar from the conference. Cindy C.S. Bezas Board of Editors, Advisory Chair LatterDayAuthors.com http://www.latterdayauthors.com A Christian Lifestyle http://www.bellaonline.com/site/lds -----Original Message----- From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Melissa Proffitt Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 2:52 PM To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: [AML] Options for our conferences I think we had a very good turnout for our writers conference, and we're anticipating another good meeting in a few months with our Annual Meeting. However, we know there are many AML-list subscribers who live too far away to attend our functions. We would like to know if any of you would be interested, in the future, in purchasing some kind of recording of the conferences--either cassette, CD, or DVD. Right now this is just a very nebulous idea, so don't dive for your checkbooks yet. But if you're interested, please let us know what would be most useful. Writers conference or Annual Meeting (or both)? Highlights or every session? Which media format is best? Thanks, Melissa Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:30:46 -0700 From: "Nan P. McCulloch" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon speech patterns How about mell (mail), pell (pail), tell (tail) ? This letter came in the mell. I carried water in the pell. My dog hurt his tell. Nan McCulloch - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 7:29 AM Subject: [AML] Mormon speech patterns > In a message dated 11/17/03 4:12:18 PM,=20 > owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com writes: > > > There are specifically Mormon speech patterns? What are they? > > > > ~Jamie Laulusa > > > > This is Utah, not just Mormon, but how about: > > "I fill of the Spirit"? > > Fillings, nothing more than fillings . . . . > Jana Riess > > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:19:40 -0700 From: "Joshua Ligairi" Subject: Re: [AML] "South Park" & Mormons South Park creators/writers Trey Parker and Matt Stone have a long-standing relationship with the LDS faith in their work. They have mentioned LDS charcters in several episodes of the television show (Joseph Smith even makes an appearance) as well as in three feature films. While researching a paper that I wrote about LDS representation in the media I came across the following interesting tid-bits on the internet: Protestant writer/filmmaker Trey Parker was born October 19, 1969 in=20 Conifer, Jefferson County, CO., next to South Park County. He grew up around Mormons and had many Mormon friends. In 1997, together with Jewish friend Matt Stone, Parker created the pilot for the hit animated television show SOUTH PARK. The rest, as they say is history. But before there was SOUTH PARK, Parker and Stone made CANNIBAL! THE MUSICAL while still struggling film students. The plot revolves around Mormon leader Alfred Packer, the only man in U.S. history every convicted of a crime related to cannibalism. On trial for cannibalism, Packer recounts the story of his journey from the Utah to the Colorado territories from his prison cell. As Packer leads a group of Mormon miners through the wild west in search of gold, things begin to go awry. Packer and his men run into a group of evil trappers who steal their horses. Things only get worse as the Packer Party get lost in the Colorado Rockies, running out of food, and having to take a page out of the Donner Party cookbook in order to survive. In South Park's movie 'Bigger, Longer, and Uncut' one of the characters dies and goes to hell. This is what happens as explained by an internet South Park enthusist: When Kenny goes in hell, he meets evil people during his ride. Hitler,=20 George Burns and... Gandhi. Why would Gandhi be in hell ? He was a good, non-violent man. Later it is revealed that it is because Mormons are the only "true" religion. As one character puts it, the only people "stupidly perfect" enough to get into Heaven. Since Gandhi wasn't a Mormon, he ended up in Hell. The latest South Park episode 'All About Mormons' is only the latest in a long line of LDS themed material from Trey Parker and Matt Stone. The show, which aired Wednesday night, is described on Comedy Central's website as follows: A Mormon kid moves to South Park and Stan has to kick his a@*. But when Stan and his dad meet their new Mormon neighbors, they become fascinated with how genuinely nice they are. While the other boys mock Stan relentlessly for wimping out, the rest of the town become Mormons. Yes, that's right folks...become Mormons. I wish I had seen the episode just out of curiosity.=20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:35:21 -0700 From: "Eric Samuelsen" Subject: [AML] Review: STEWART, Farewell To Eden Review: Farewell To Eden So Thursday, I zipped over to UVSC to see Farewell to Eden, a debut play by a new, young Mormon playwright, Mahonri Stewart. James Arrington said it was a good play, and he directed the UVSC production, so I had high expectations. And the play is indeed a very powerful and impressive debut. Mahonri Stewart; remember that name. Farewell to Eden is a sort of cross between drawing room comedy and melodrama. If I had to pick one, I'd say it was very much in the tradition of urban melodrama of the mid-nineteenth century. That probably sounds like a put-down, but I don't mean it to be; I'm just trying to categorize it for you. Fact is, there was a 19th C. tradition of urban melodrama focusing on social class, in which we see upper class people as having all the power and money, and therefore having ostensibly good lives, but they're actually all hypocrites, and are secretly miserable, while honest laboring folk are fundamentally moral and happy and good, though poor and lacking power. It's very interesting to me to see a Mormon playwright deal with those sorts of issues, because they reflect Brigham Young's own critique of class and economics. Brigham Young served his mission in England in the 1840's, and was appalled by the class structure he saw there. He was a first hand observer of the Industrial Revolution, or specifically, laissez faire economics, both of which he saw as viciously destructive. And of course, Brigham's critique of class echoes the Book of Mormon, which is certainly no fan of whatever cultural constructions of class are implied by the term 'kingmen,' and which consistently regards a failure to take care of the poor as the defining characteristic of sinful pride.=20 So, structurally, looking at Mahonri's play, here's what's going on: three siblings belonging to a wealthy family named the 'Highetts' (lovely Sheridanesque name, that one) have just lost their father. They nonetheless pursue typical upper class aims, specifically marriage, romance, and literature. They're visited by Brigham Young and John Taylor, who preach to them briefly, but gain converts only among their dressmakers. The humble dressmakers join the Church, and their lives improve. Meanwhile, the Highetts' lives grow more and more wretched. That's basically the plot. Expressed this baldly, the plot probably seems overtly didactic and uninteresting. But it's written much more skillfully than I've suggested. There's genuine wit and bite in the dialogue, and the characters are sharply drawn. I've focused on plot here, because I'm pretty cheered by it. As someone who is politically leftist, I see this not only as an interesting play by a new Mormon writer, but also as a new play by another interesting leftist.=20 Were I conservative, however, I think there'd be a lot to like in the play as well, especially if I were a Mormon cultural conservative. After all, it's a play in which two prophets preach repentance to a variety of people. Some listen, repent, and are happier. Others don't listen, don't repent, and are miserable. Again, I've described the plot in reductive terms, and that's unfair; it's a much more interestingly subtle play than I've described. But my point is, I'm a liberal, and I liked it, in part because I saw this as an interestingly 'liberal' play. But I have no idea if Mahonri sees himself as a 'liberal' author at all. I rather suspect he doesn't. If I were a conservative, I think I'd like it just as much.=20 Let's take structure a different direction. The play is set in 1840. The protagonist is a woman named Georgiana Highett. She's a writer, and a snob; she talks a lot about the 'lower orders' and how they're here on earth to serve, well, her. (She also mentions her friend 'Charlie Dickens,' which is a mistake; no close friend of Charles Dickens would ever hold her views on class.) Anyway, she rather rejects 'high society' with its sexual intrigues and dances, in part because she genuinely thinks herself homely, and unable to attract a man. And then Stephen Lockhart, an old family friend, comes to visit, and she finds herself very much wanting to attract him, although he's initially more interested in Georgiana's more attractive sister, Catherine. Catherine is herself intrigued by a young man with the delightfully NASCAR name of Darrel Fredericks, and so the first several scenes of the play are drawing room comedy, with lots of intrigue and a fun double love triangle. Georgiana likes Stephen, who likes Catherine, who likes Darrel, who, it turns out, isn't entirely uninterested in Georgiana. And hovering about them all like an absurdly overdressed moth, is the third Highett, brother to the girls, the brainless fop Thomas. Anyway, Georgiana decides to have a new dress made, in order to attract Stephen, and hires two dressmaker sisters, Hannah and Esther, to make it. And then Brigham Young and John Taylor show up. Georgiana archly dismisses them; Stephen seems somewhat taken with them. Meanwhile, the two missionaries insist on including the household staff in their discussion, and Hannah and Esther are fascinated. Mary, the gossipy Old Family Retainer (former governess? maid-in-waiting? head chambermaid?) drops in her own humorous asides, and whole thing felt very drawing room comedy. (I'm wracking my brain to think of a playwright I could suggest to Mahonri as a model-British comic playwrights in the 1840's? Maybe the young Dion Boucicault; I think London Assurance was about 1841. Or maybe Tom Robertson.) And it had some wit and flair to it, and I really did want to know which of the guys would end up with which of the girls. (And yet, I also wasn't disappointed when that issue turned out to be something of a non-starter.) The drawing room comedy part of the play is nicely written. We see a lot of Catherine and Georgiana's relationship; Georgiana is waspish about Catherine's social ambitions, and Catherine affects nonchalance; she's pretty and popular, so who cares what sis thinks? And yet, throughout the play, we also get a real sense of family. Georgiana is a very interesting character, very bright, and yet insecure and fragile emotionally. She may insult her sister, but she's also protective of her, and we do see that the sisters genuinely care for each other. And Thomas may be a brainless twit, but he's charmingly naive about things. He's the one who invites the missionaries up, as a lark. And then the missionaries leave. (I really like the idea of a play in which Brigham Young and John Taylor are characters, in which they're only onstage for about five minutes.) And the play shifts in tone, and nasty character stuff is revealed. It becomes a melodrama, though again, this isn't a put-down. For starters, we learn that Thomas, the gormless fop, is actually nothing of the kind. He's a crook, and he's wasting the family's inheritance, and trying to cover it up through embezzlement. And Darrell Fredericks is a slimy weasel, who is blackmailing Thomas, and trying to marry one of Thomas' sisters, so he can also get his hands on the family money. Catherine, it turns out, has not been as primly chaste as she's led us to believe. And each of these explosions shocks Georgiana, who, for all her intelligence, hasn't ever suspected any of it. Georgiana has also really fallen in love with Stephen, who, it turns out, is more interested in one, or both, of the dressmakers. (I must say, when Young and Taylor exit their short scene, two pretty dressmakers in tow, I must confess to a certain unworthy amusement. Those two guys, in 1840? Heh heh heh.) Georgiana goes off the deep end, and ends up stabbing (non-fatally, thank heavens) one of the dressmakers. At the end of the play, Stephen reveals that he's decided to join the Church and join the dressmakers in Nauvoo. Mary leaves the old family manse, having been badly treated by Georgiana one time too many. Thomas' crimes are revealed, and so is Catherine's folly, and Fredericks is finally expelled from the home. At the end of the play, all the family furniture has been sold to pay Thomas' debts, and Georgiana bids Stephen, and even the house itself, goodbye. The play's biggest strength, and also its biggest weakness, has to do with class. I love the idea of a play set in the 1840's which reflects Brigham Young's ideas about class and wealth and laissez faire. I love plugging into that specific melodramatic tradition. Nowadays, when East Bench Mormons get the prime seats at General Conference, and all Sunday School lessons on Book of Mormon economics or King Benjamin's address have to include the obligatory codicil: 'of course, wealth isn't bad at all, we know that, it just depends on what you do with it,' this play points up some uncomfortable historical realities. Laissez faire's been tried. A prophet of God saw it. He hated everything about it. At the same time, class itself is something American playwrights generally struggle with. The British class system, ca. 1840, is something we will really probably never completely understand. Mahonri does his best with it, and his best is pretty darned good, but I kept noticing these little anachronisms. Fredericks and Georgiana talk about their school days together. The Highetts are supposed to be 'upper class,' but they don't have a country estate, their father was a businessman, and his best friend is a publisher. A lot of the play suggests a writer who has read a whole lot of Jane Austen. Good for him. But Jane Austen was a middle-class writer, describing middle-class realities. They only seem upper class to us, because the clothes look so cool, and they have servants, and besides, we're Americans and really truly don't get it. Still and all, it's a tremendous debut. I liked the play a lot, and am anxious to see what Mahonri does next. The production is very fine, especially Margie Johnson's brittle, brilliant Georgiana, and Amber Jones' moving and subtle subtextual pain as Catherine and Brandon West's stunning transformation from twit Thomas to snake Thomas. I'm very impressed. Eric Samuelsen=20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:52:54 -0700 From: Marvin Payne Subject: [none] I've never been a visitor to South Park, but there's an interesting=20 observation about it in this week's U.S.News column by John Leo. Seems=20 that the south South Park makers are kind of unafraid to assail liberal=20 positions (among whatever else they may assail), making them a rarity=20 in the pop media. The reference that made me laugh was to a South Park=20 mother who wanted to abort her child ("It's my body!") even though the=20 boy was eight years old. A funny joke, but the implications are really=20 quite astounding. Marvin Payne ____________________ Visit marvinpayne.com! "Come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift..." (from the last page of the Book of Mormon) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:59:15 +0000 From: "Elizabeth Petty Bentley" Subject: [AML] American Book Publishing Some time ago American Book Publishing was mentioned on the list, and I=20 forwarded the info I found on their web site to my friend, Judy Kigin, who passed it on to her friend Gary. For what it's worth, here's what Gary later told her. I assume sfwa is the Science Fiction Writers of American, a reputable source. Beth Bentley - ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Jacobson To: Kigin Family Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 1:35 AM Subject: American Book Publishing Judy, I was just looking at the website "Writer Beware Alerts" concerning unscrupulous publishers and agents that take advantage of writers, and I came across this about the publishing company your friend recommended: American Book Publishing/C. Lee Nunn Owner/President Writer Beware has received substantial complaints about American Book=20 Publishing (C. Lee Nunn, owner). ABP, which presents itself as a "traditional" publisher, requires its=20 authors to pay a sizeable "setup" fee. Complaints include non-standard contract terms, non-production of promised e-book editions, non-fulfillment of marketing and publicity promises, repeatedly delayed publication schedules, finished books full of errors, non-payment of royalties, heavy pressure on authors to purchase bulk numbers of their own books, and harassment of those who question or complain. American Book Publishing has been the focus of a police investigation. Authors with complaints about American Book Publishing are urged to=20 contact Writer Beware: beware@sfwa.org.=20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:15:06 -0600 From: "John Hajicek" Subject: [AML] Rare first edition Book of Mormon (Palmyra: 1830) online [moderator's note: though we are very careful about commercial announcements on AML-List, I think our listmembers will be very interested by the full online version of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon announced here] _____ The most expensive American book printed after 1800 is a Mormon book. There are several other Mormon books equally historical. Now, a complete first edition Book of Mormon (Palmyra, 1830) is entirely viewable, on the Internet sites http://www.iNephi.com and http://www.Palmyra1830.com - which are just now officially launched. Until now, monumental Mormon books were preserved exclusively in the Nation's major research libraries which hold our American heritage. A first edition Book of Mormon is owned each by Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Southern Methodist University (SMU) - all private institutions. Publicly owned copies are kept secure by the Library of Congress, the New York Public Library, and the University of California, Berkeley. Famous Americana collectors have also sought after this book for its influence on American history. Many successful and educated people in California, Utah, and the West own copies, including non-Mormon collectors of Americana and Western Americana. Even Bill Gates is known to display a copy in his prestigious library facing the Olympic Mountains on the shores of Lake Washington. The remaining copies are held onto tightly by families with an early Mormon ancestry, deep Mormon roots, and strong faith. At last, we all can examine a copy of the original Book of Mormon with our friends, page by page, and compare it side by side with a modern version. I have created an Internet site with a hyperlinked copy of all 600 pages in full color photographs. You can view this first edition Book of Mormon at either http://www.iNephi.com or http://www.Palmyra1830.com This is my tribute to a book that shaped our country. =20 _____ With kindest regards, I look forward to hearing back from you. - - John - --=20 John Hajicek Manuscript Archivist and Historian of Rare Books http://www.Mormonism.com (816) 220-3141 (Home) (816) 220-3142 (Cell) (816) 220-3143 (Fax) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 02:20:33 -0500 From: "Eric D. Dixon" Subject: [AML] Mormons on South Park [I just posted this to my blog, here: http://www.shrubbloggers.com/archives/20031116.html#e20031121-0207am It's about Wednesday night's new South Park episode, about a Mormon family moving to town... EDD] Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb November 21, 2003=20 2:07 a.m. I guess I should comment on Wednesday night's episode of South Park. For those of you who didn't see it, it was about a Mormon kid and his family who move to town. The kids at school and Stan Marsh's parents find the new family's preternatural happy friendliness off-putting at first, but Stan and the Marsh family are gradually won over. But as they learn more about the family's religion, we're treated to reenactments of early Mormon history stuff like Joseph Smith being visited by the angel Moroni, translating the Book of Mormon, etc. with musical narration and a catchy refrain: "Dum, dum, dum, dum dum." As the intermittent "historical" clips progress, and Joseph Smith's stories and claims seem more and more outlandish, we realize that the refrain is a comment on the religion and its believers: "Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb dumb." (I realized it would come to this during the first refrain, incidentally.) When someone finally demonstrates real skepticism (Martin Harris's wife, no less), the refrain changes to: "Smart, smart, smart, smart smart." Stan becomes a skeptic himself, and denounces his new Mormon friend. But the episode ends on a note of tolerance, as the Mormon family is revealed to be sincere in their happy friendliness and the Mormon kid takes Stan to task: (paraphrasing) "Maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up. But even if he did, I don't really care. Today, the church teaches families how to love each other and live good lives. I have a great life, and the Book of Mormon is responsible for that. But just because I have different beliefs, you let that stand in the way of friendship. You have a lot of growing up to do." Roll credits. Earlier tonight, Michael Malice sent me a message about the show: >i really liked that they had a pro-mormon message at the end. although most >stupid people think the show is evil, they're actually fairly balanced in >the show with their iconoclasm. It also would have been very easy for them >to show the family as phonies, but the fact that they were genuinely loving >and caring I thought was clever. Yeah, they've pulled out great endings like that many times like in the Big Gay Al scoutmaster episode, and the "Harbucks" coffee chain episode. I thought Wednesday night's episode was pretty damn funny, but it's always frustrating that Trey Parker gets so many Mormon details wrong, even while he demonstrates that he's done a fair amount of research (as in Orgazmo). He pared Mormon history down to a series of absurd scenes that strain credulity. Not that those moments didn't (kinda, sorta) happen, there's just so much missing context. As an example, here's a good paper on Book of Mormon translation (from a critical but ultimately apologetic institutional Mormon perspective). However, satire should ignore context, and this was effective satire. I really laughed harder during this episode than I have in quite awhile. But painting someone like Martin Harris as clueless and deluded just ignores too much history. I mean, Harris said stuff like this all the time: "Yes, I did see the plates on which the Book of Mormon was written. I did see the angel, I did hear the voice of God, and I do know that Joseph Smith is a true Prophet of God, holding the keys of the Holy Priesthood." If he was following a charlatan, Harris wasn't "dumb" he was in on it, or purposefully living a lie. (But I don't think these options make much sense in context, either.) I think this episode is ultimately good for Mormons, partly because it's positive toward modern family-oriented Mormonism in the end, but also because Mormons should be able to understand and deal with difficult historical questions (of which there are many) from an outsider's perspective and this kind of pop-culture exposure might force some worthwhile confrontations . . . Eric D. Dixon - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:54:31 -0700 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: [AML] John Moyer questions? I am working on an interview of HaleStorm screenwriter John Moyer for Irreantum's forthcoming film package. I believe Moyer has been primary screenwriter for "Singles Ward," "R.M.," and the forthcoming "Home Teachers." Would anyone be willing to suggest any questions for us to ask him? Reply on the list or directly to me, whatever you prefer. (For the film package, we've already completed a Neil LaBute interview, and he gave us a short story to accompany the interview and also promised to review "Brigham City," which we sent him because he hadn't seen it yet.) Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:58:52 -0700 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Pride and Prejudice women, etc. Well, I have a little free time, and I'm lonely and bored. So I thought I'd share some of thoughts on P&P. I liked it a lot, though I think I'll like it a little better when I'm not surrounded by teens and pre-teens loudly sighing, gasping, and cheering for every little moment in the film. I'm also intrigued by the way this film is being advertised. On one level, the preview audience and the word of mouth thingy makes a lot of sense considering the lack of budget for advertising. Since most of you have seen the trailer for this film, though, you would probably agree that if there was _any_ way they could scrape up money for a few well placed TV spots, this film would do very well in the theatre. The trailer alone is fun, and the movie would cross just fine into any teenage/college co-ed audience, regardless of religion. Alas, I understand that we are talking about lots and lots of money for TV spots, so I hope this word of mouth thing works well. (Or I hope I'm wrong, and they do have the budget for TV). Back to the women in it: I thought they were great. It was a nice cast, and Kam Heskin was particularly fun. I still don't think her hair should've been done the way it was. (I know, who cares about hair, but...) She was supposed to be attractive and nicely groomed but not overdone, and, I'm sorry, but I've never, not once in my short 29 years, met a woman whose hair naturally curls that way. Those are sponge curler, hot roller, or curling iron curls, not natural ones. The closest I've seen natural curls to that is an old YA acquaintance who would majorly gel and hairspray her hair before blow drying it each day, and her hair was still really different.(Fun anecdote: One day in Hong Kong, as that YA friend had just started her hair dryer and was about to dry her hair, she looked over and realized that the blow dryer was shooting out flames. I guess she hadn't adjusted her hairdryer to the different electrical output yet. Thank goodness she had not yet put her hair in it's path. So we all were able to laugh at the event and not look back on it as the tragic loss of a beautiful head of hair). My point is, it takes a good deal of work to make curls like that, and yet it was clear that we were suppose to believe that Elizabeth was pretty low maintenance and those curls were natural. I didn't believe it for one second, and Kam Heskins looks great with straight or wavy hair and did not need the fake hair-style. Speaking of low maintenance, my first perception from the trailer, which actually had more to do with the website pictures with the porcelain skin and the hot roller curls, was completely off. My perception at this point might be a little askew because bad traffic and a late arrival for my guest landed us three rows from the front. Just the same, while I was watching and enjoying this nice film with these nice, attractive actors, I kept thinking for everyone but Lydia and Kitty, "Please mask now." Hello pores!! Boy was I wrong, and I felt like Lydia watching the film. Foundation and powder! Please, Ladies! But seriously, I had slightly mixed feelings about the lack of primpage that went into prepping these stars for the camera. Was it lighting that left them looking like the surface of the moon? Was it the old Scera theatre screen? I don't think so. Lydia looked really nice. I mean, big pores and overly sweaty faces during a jogging scene is one thing, but most of the other scenes? Sheesh! There was also an abundance of very dark lipstick that didn't always flatter the way it needed to. Of course, 90% percent of the shots used in the cut I saw (and I'm not exaggerating) were either mediums or close-ups. Is that normal? If so, why did it feel so funny? I felt a little frustrated for Anne, who did a terrific job with the Production Design (in the house in particular), and very little of it was featured at all. I'm not asking for a still shot of every room or anything. I just felt at times like we were watching the story from a perspective of a drunk, where everything is just a little fuzzy and people seem to really be in your face all of the time. My husband asked me about the plot and the script, and I, with my amateur eye and perception, responded, "Well, they took the Pride and Prejudice out of it." What I meant is not that they were completely unfaithful to the book or anything. They did a lot of fun things with it, and I really enjoyed a few of the plot changes in it. But, like Jacob, I didn't see much of an arch for Darcy, and I kind of missed the whole "he's proud, she's prejudice" thing. He seemed proud for about ten seconds, and then suddenly, he was enraptured with her singing "Bring Back My Bonnie to Me." I also missed the crafty deception of Jack Wickham and Elizabeth's fascination with him. You pretty much knew from the first moment on that he was sleazy walking testosterone. It was impossible to figure out why Elizabeth would hang out with him, unless we were supposed to think she was just walking on the wild side a little. He was kind of cute, though. All of the above said, I look forward to seeing it again. It was very fun, and there were a lot of great things about it. Besides, the projector went out about 60 seconds before the end, just as they were showing the exterior of... (Wait, would that be a spoiler?? I'll refrain.) Anyway, I have a theory that it was planned so that no one who saw the film at a preview could feel satisfied without paying and seeing it again. Maybe I'm just paranoid, though. Two thoughts have really stuck in my mind since the viewing. First, I know that Film Directing majors at BYU have a lot on their plate, but I really think they need to have a few more acting classes in their curriculum. They got a really nice, talented cast that delivered pretty well in this film, but the first ten minutes were really shaky to me. I noticed it when I was at the Y, and I notice it now. BYU film majors and grads are not usually very good judges of acting, and I don't know if a majority of them understand at all how to cast or work with actors. After the first ten minutes, things seemed to improve for me. I may have just gotten used to it, though. No wonder one of my all time favorite director's is Sydney Pollack. It helped me see a little more why I prefer Richard's films the other LDS films. My second thought is basically this. No more ending narration to tie up the film! It made more sense to me in this film than it has in any of the other LDS made films, largely because Austen herself tied up the various plots in her book with a paragraph or two about the characters. It requires too little craft, however, and it's just a cheap way for the writer to finish a story. It made me think about how my much father-in-law, a wonderful musician, absolutely loathes a popular 80's music trend to fade out songs instead of writing actual endings. As one of my favorite vampires from an alternate reality would say, "Bored now." Dianna Graham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #226 ******************************