From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #450 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, September 13 2001 Volume 01 : Number 450 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:21:29 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Product Placement in Writing - ---Original Message From: Jeff Needle > This isn't exactly *Mormon* literature, but it is news from > the world of publishing that may merit notice. > > Fay Weldon has just published a novel whose title I can't > recall right now, but the title contains the name of a famous > jewelry store. According to news reports, the book speaks > glowingly about the store, using names of actual people who > work there. > > So far, okay. But it turns out the store paid her a large > sum of money for "product placement" -- a technique long used > in movies and other media. But this is the first time I've > heard of "product placement" in the world of literature. > > Do you all find this an alarming development? Or is it just > another trend to be expected in a consumerist economy? Oh my. Isn't that interesting? For as long as I can remember, writer's guides have been telling people to avoid mentioning products--mainly to avoid being sued by companies who are fighting "genericide". I wonder if this kind of thing will catch on or not. That's quite a tightrope for a corporate policy to walk--encourage prominent mention for purposes of product exposure, but simultaneously avoid loss of your trademark to genericide. Jacob Proffitt - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:34:12 -0600 From: Thom Duncan Subject: Re: [AML] Fw: MN Newsweek Cover Takes Flawed,Skeptical Look at LDSChurch: Kent Larsen 3Sep01 US NY NYC N1 Tony Markham wrote: > > margaret young wrote: > > [snip] > > >>The cover paints us as a DIVERSE group, which is not how we're largely perceived. >> > > [snip] > > > I respectfully disagree 100%. The cover reinforces old "Mormons as a Cult" > stereotypes. There is an assimilated, Borg-like quality to having all the people > dressed in identical white shirts and black pants. That photo gave me the creeps. > When I saw it, I thought immediately of that guy Applewhite and his "Heaven's Gate" > community. Look around at the men in your next priesthood meeting. The preponderance of white shirts is very telling. I think the cover symbolically hit us Mormons right on the head, at least in so far as how we are expected to dress. Clothing-wise, were are very much Boirg-like. >>My real question is, why do we get so uptight about our image? >> > > Because I learned a long time ago that when you live in a material world, perception > is reality. The Lord has seen fit to give us this experience of having our spirits > fused with matter, and five (maybe six) senses to interpret this existence. Under > these rules, image becomes truth. The cover of this Newsweek article communicates > several so-called truths about Mormons that a) overpower anything written in the > magazine because pictures are inherently more powerful than words, and b) will > repulse people who value free will over groupthink. Sadly, we've brought such observations upon ourselves. We not only set ourselves apart from the world, but then we brag about it. Several decades ago, it was standard misssionary tactics to tell the world how we lived longer, we had better marriages, less junvenile delinquents. All that "pride" in our peculiarilty has come back to haunt us. >>Is anyone really surprised that we're not readily understood and appreciated? >> > > My cynical nature wants to respond that whoever put that cover together understands > us all too well. I agree completely. Thom - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 15:11:30 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: RE: [AML] An Iconography of Our Own At 03:58 PM 9/7/01 -0600, you wrote: >In a recent PEC meeting, we received a message from our stake leadership >that informality is becoming a problem. I don't understand why it's a "problem." The point is for people to attend church and receive the sacrament, and if people feel unwelcome because they can't afford the costume, then we have a Rameumpton (or however you spell it) situation. I know that I would look forward to church more if it were not for the necessity of wearing uncomfortable stuff. Is this need for suits and dresses yet another cultural thing? I still want to wear my nice pantsuits to church, but I haven't yet gotten bold enough to try it and see what happens. OTOH, I remember when I was taking the discussions, and the elders explained to me about the priesthood and the authority it embues. At first I was incensed that they were telling me that my baptism at 15 into a Christian church was somehow invalid and meaningless; then, when I came to understand what they were talking about, I found that I dressed better after than when they came over out of respect for this authority that was completely new to me. So I guess I'm on both sides of the fence! You can do that when you have achieved an impressive state of mature rotundity! barbara hume - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 17:24:50 -0600 From: Scott and Marny Parkin Subject: RE: [AML] An Iconography of Our Own Ethan Skarstedt wrote: >I hasten to point out that a central point to my comment was that it was >the *same girl* in different clothes. I take that as evidence that the >artist went out of his/her way to reduce the difference between the two >to clothing, nothing else. It appears that I misunderstood. That it was the same girl indicates to me that the illustrator wanted to show that each of us (the girl) has two kinds of choices to make: frilly pink (aka "good") choices or sleek black (aka "bad") choices when it comes to choosing friends. One person, two choices. It appears that we disagree in our basic interpretation of the image. I suspect we violently agree that simplistic statements by authors, artists, and others are often less than satisfying and often represent either poor or lazy work on their part. If such simplifications are offered as universal truths, I reject the art and question the artist. If they're offered as iconic statements intended to communicate simple concepts quickly, I accept them as such and give them no further thought. In the specific case of the pink/black clothing, I just think the iconic representation succeeded at its primary goal--to illustrate the idea of a single choice with functionally opposite results. In my particular case, I choose to see the girl wearing black as indicative of a more independent and thoughtful nature and the girl wearing pink as indicative of a closed mind wearing the uniform of simple conformity and functional brain death. But that's a completely different discussion... ;-) >My objection to the picture was that it seemed to be a gross >simplification of the idea that clothing is acceptable as a sole >criteria upon which to make character judgments rather than a gross >simplification of the idea that one must choose one's friends carefully. Apparently I saw the parts of the image as having different meanings than you did, thus our very different interpretations of it. I don't know what that illustrator's point was. Perhaps s/he intended to make a social/political statement that dress is the sole differentiator between good and bad people. If that was the point, I find such a statement to be so silly and obviously wrong that I reject it, regardless of the illustrator's intent, and seek other interpretations for the images. Which is the danger any would-be artist runs once they let their creative work out of their own hands and into the public. >You can assume good intent on the part of an artist and still hold the >opinion that he/she is operating on assumptions you don't agree with. I >would even go so far as to suggest that some artists with good intent >are operating on assumptions that are just plain wrong. In those cases >I believe that it is necessary to point out the fallacy. Absolutely. I just disagree with your interpretation of the image, and believe that the illustrator had a different "point" in mind than you described. Unless the illustrator is on the list and brave enough to step forward and clarify, it looks like we'll just have to disagree about that interpretation. As it turns out, I agree whole-heartedly with the conclusions you make based on your interpretation of the image; I just argue different conclusions based on a different interpretation. >Of course what I would consider a silly idea may not be considered such >by others. But, since I only have access to my own head, I tilt at the >windmills I can see. As should we all. If we each argue what we see, then we each have a better chance of understanding how others see. I think that's a good thing. Scott Parkin - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 12:52:05 -0700 From: "jana" Subject: [AML] HUGHES Book for Review I have an advance copy of Dean Hughes newest work, _Writing on the Wall_ = available for review. Please write me at jana@enivri.com if you are = interested in reviewing this novel. Jana Remy AML-List Review Editor - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:54:14 -0600 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: Re: [AML] Covenant Books for Review On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 10:33:40AM -0500, jana wrote: > Hi folks! > Here's a list of books up for review. Please take a look at > www.xmission.com/`aml/reviews/guidelines.html to learn more about our > review program. Please note the correct address: http://www.xmission.com/~aml/reviews/guidelines.html - -- Terry L Jeffress | I've always believed in writing without | a collaborator, because where two people | are writing the same book, each believes | he gets all the worries and only half | the royalties. -- Agatha Christie - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 01:04:10 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Polygamy Thom Duncan wrote: > Anyone who deigns to write a story of the > future in which polygamy is brought back has to figure out a way to > "inactivate" the currently popular Proclamation on the Family which > specifically states that marriage is between one man and one woman. I > read that as about an offical repudiation of the doctrine as one could > expect. Why should that be hard? It's already happened. The Official Declaration ending polygamy inactivated the relevant canonized scriptures in the Doctrine and Covenants. "Inactivating" previous doctrines is easy in Mormon theology. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 01:14:48 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Polygamy Levi Peterson wrote: > I am afraid I feel that the person who accepts polygamy also believes in the > innate inferiority of women to men. To me that is an immoral position. There are many reasons why one might accept polygamy. To assume a single, all-encompassing, negative reason as a basis to call something immoral seems to me to be a dubious stretch of logic, to say the least. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 14:37:38 -0600 From: Terry L Jeffress Subject: [AML] Announcing the AML Website Redesign To all AML Board, Staff, and list memebers: I am pleased to announce that I have finished a redesign of the AML website: . New features include: -- A unified look for the entire site, inculding the AML-List Review Archive. -- Quick access to almost any point in the site from the menu that appears on every page. The menu also comes from a single file so that changes to the menu can easily propogate to the rest of the site. -- Easily updateable events calendar. For example, I just added the event Scott and Marny Parkin posted just today. So if you have any literature related events, send them in. -- A very fast updating system that not only uploads only the files that need changing, but also only uploads the necessary part of the file. Upcoming features still in the works: -- Getting the AML Awards online as a database similar to the AML-List Review Archive. Please feel free to send me your comments and any necessary corrections. - -- Terry L Jeffress | Where is human nature so weak as in the | bookstore? -- Henry Ward Beecher - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 17:15:51 -0700 From: "jana" Subject: [AML] Jeff SAVAGE, _Cutting Edge_ Summary (was: Covenant Books for Review) Here is a summary for "Cutting Edge" > > Jeffrey S. Savage's high-tech thriller, Cutting Edge, follows Travis > Edwards, a bright, young LDS programmer, and his wife, Lisa, as they move to > Silicon Valley - an area where brainpower and computer power combine in > fierce competition. > > For Travis, it's the perfect job. A hot new company is in desperate need of > his expertise - and they're willing to make it worth his while. Lids, > homesick and six months pregnant, is initially heartbroken to leave Utah, > but soon makes friends and settles into their new lifestyle > > But everything changes when Travis discovers that someone has been stealing > sensitive files off of his computer, and the person he confides in > mysteriously disappears. Before long, Travis realizes that he can't trust > anyone; no his coworkers, his boss, not even members of his ward. > Travis must use all of the means at his disposal to prove his innocence and > keep his family alive. Because in Silicon Valley, while some ideas are worth > billions, other ideas can get you killed. > - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 10:02:29 -0600 From: Barbara Hume Subject: RE: [AML] Polygamy At 10:19 AM 9/11/01 -0800, you wrote: >Janet wrote a great book called "Women of Principle: Female Networking in >Contemporary Mormon Polygyny. It garnered her some national attention. >Stephen Carter I currently have a client who is writing a book on her experiences with a polygynous group, and it doesn't sound anything at all like this. The men consider themselves demigods, not to be questioned, and the women are to be servile and quiet. The way these various groups develop must depend to a great extent on the personalities and motivations of the people who found them. barbara hume - - AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature http://www.xmission.com/~aml/aml-list.htm ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #450 ******************************