From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #913 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, December 3 2002 Volume 01 : Number 913 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 21:07:09 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Re: Sheri Dew on New DB Policy (Comp 1) [MOD: This is a compilation post.] >From dmichael@wwno.com Thu Nov 28 03:49:16 2002 > we will indeed continue to stock > books that deal with the classic tension between good and evil. Thus many books > on our shelves will deal with things such as adultery and abuse. But the > distinction we are trying to make is that books we stock must expose and > identify evil as what it is, and good for what it is. This is what most of the > important literature of the world does. Perhaps my book _Brother Brigham_ would be carried by Deseret Book after all, since it definitely exposes and identifies the evil in it. Those of you who have read my book--do you think DB would carry it? > Believe me, we absolutely could have sold > many copies of this book and thus have foregone revenue by the approach we have > taken. We continue to support all of Richard Evans' other titles, and are > delighted to do so. This makes no sense to me at all. If this whole thing really is a business decision, then they should have carried the book, because those very customers they're trying to please would have purchased many copies of it. D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com - --------------------------------------------- >From amyc@xmission.com Thu Nov 28 09:48:24 2002 Let me quote two of Sheri Dew's lines: > This was an economic/business/product decision and not a moral > one. and: > Believe me, we absolutely could have > sold many copies of this book and thus have foregone revenue by the > approach we have taken. Anyone else see the inherent contradiction? Can someone explain to me how these two points of view are compatible? Amy Chamberlain - ------------------------------------------- >From cornerstonepublishing@attbi.com Thu Nov 28 09:59:29 2002 I'm curious about Sheri Dew's statement. The following pieces from it seem to conflict. <<<<< ...We are like any other retailer in that we are trying to match product with our customers...This was an economic/business/product decision and not a moral one. ...It is, however, our responsibility to try and fill our shelves with product that our customers want, will appreciate, and will come back for. ...The challenge we had with Richard Paul Evans' book is that it paints a very sympathetic view of immorality, never identifies immorality as immorality, and then appears to even reward immorality. That's the distinction. Believe me, we absolutely could have sold many copies of this book and thus have foregone revenue by the approach we have taken.... ... >>>>> This seems like a moral decision as well as a business one, not that I fault DB for making the decision. Frankly this is the exact standard by which I decide which movies I want to see. I wonder if the resolution of these two statements lies in the consequences of selling a bunch of books that do not meet the moral expectations of DB's audience. Is DB concerned that selling a lot of copies of The Last Promise will sour DB's market on making future purchases from them? Or is their really a moral element to their decision, which is fine with me, but it seems to me it aught to be forthrightly stated so that authors can keep it in mind when they submit to DB. Richard Hopkins - -------------------------------------------- >From ThomDuncan@prodigy.net Thu Nov 28 12:14:38 2002 Sherri Dew reportedly said: >I hope it is not presumptuous for me to attempt to clarify >just a couple of >points you made in your e-mail message. First, we will indeed >continue to stock >books that deal with the classic tension between good and >evil. Thus many books >on our shelves will deal with things such as adultery and >abuse. But the >distinction we are trying to make is that books we stock must >expose and >identify evil as what it is, and good for what it is. Yes, by all means. We wouldn't our readers having to figure this out for themselves. (Read: our readers are idiots with no inner moral compass to figure these things out for themselves.) Thom Duncan - ------------------------------------------- >From gaelyn@mstar2.net Sun Dec 01 23:05:38 2002 Sheri Dew said: Every bookstore in the country is doing the same, as is every > retailer. This was an economic/business/product decision and not > a moral one. > It is not our prerogative to control what our customers choose to > read. It is, > however, our responsibility to try and fill our shelves with > product that our > customers want, will appreciate, and will come back for. It is not a moral issue, but.... But the > distinction we are trying to make is that books we stock must expose and > identify evil as what it is, and good for what it is. This is > what most of the > important literature of the world does. The challenge we had with > Richard Paul > Evans' book is that it paints a very sympathetic view of > immorality, never > identifies immorality as immorality, and then appears to even reward > immorality. That's the distinction. Believe me, we absolutely > could have sold > many copies of this book and thus have foregone revenue by the > approach we have > taken. It is not a moral issue, but the decision was made on the basis of whether or not evil is identified and punished. And it is a business decision even though they obviously could have sold many copies of the book. To me she is blatantly inconsistent here. Gae Lyn Henderson > - ------------------------------------------ >From ersamuel@byugate.byu.edu Mon Dec 02 09:32:58 2002 Thanks to Katie Parker for sending along these comments from Sheri. It = doesn't make me feel any better about the decision, and it doesn't = convince me that there were more factors involved than they're telling us, = and it's still just spin, though a particularly lucid and intelligent = example of spin, and it's still an insanely foolish decision, but still. Eric Samuelsen - -------------------------------------- - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 02:13:20 EST From: Mona214@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Gratitude I totally agree with Jana and her comments about gratitude. This habit of comparing to someone else has bothered me since I was a very young girl. In order for someone to feel good they need to begin their gratitude list with: "At least I don't . . ." or "At least I have . . ." We are all given blessings and challenges and it never feels good to be compared to and felt that because someone isn't like you then they are TRULY blessed. Ramona Siddoway - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 17:55:20 -0700 From: "Gae Lyn Henderson" Subject: [AML] re: CHEYENNE, _The Keystone: The Day Alma Died_ (Review) When I read D. Michael's review (thank you for your honesty) I could only think--this book is being advertised on the radio with the words that critics are calling it "a literary tour de force." The public is being deceived. Can you imagine your average citizen buying this book thinking, "I'm finally going to get something really really literary and improve my mind and see what "high" art is all about? And then getting what Michael describes? So unfair! And generally does anyone else have a physical repulsion as I do to the commercials advertising the "popular" Mormon novels (the ones that at least AML listers would agree have little "literary" content)? I feel physically sick sometimes hearing them and always switch stations immediately now. Gae Lyn Henderson - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 09:51:38 -0700 From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] New DB Policy I really do stand by the right of someone to be offended by certain movies and pieces of fiction--even my own fiction. As a follow-up to a previous post re the student of mine who was offended by one of my stories and by my discussion of Gene England: I have since learned much more about her life and the struggles she's facing--huge struggles. Her faith is so challenged by life itself that I can understand why the challenges my fiction presents would simply be too much for her right now--and I grant her the right to be offended and to opt for Jack Weyland over me. I have been working with her WHERE SHE IS and have not insisted that she meet me where I am. If I'm going to claim permission to write about the things which matter most to me--and a good part of my writing would not be sold by Deseret Book ever--I think I must allow someone else the right to reject or seriously critique what I've done. Of course, I'd rather have everybody adore all my work, but I know my culture and I know what I do far too well. Persuade someone to read _House Without Walls_ and then give them "God on Donohue" and watch their face. Now, to Richard's question ("How can you be offended by a movie you haven't seen?") Previews will do it for me, thanks. Here are some movies I haven't seen that offend me: Anything Adam Sandler does. Most movies catering to teenagers and teenaged humor. (_10 Things I Hate About You_ comes to mind. Bruce took me to it thinking it was a remake of _Taming of the Shrew_--which it is, in a very dim way. It's the vulgarization of Shakespeare, the reverse process he used himself when he took a piece of literature and improved it. The film makers took a great play and made it into an amazingly stupid movie. I put my head on my husband's shoulders, enjoyed the feel of his fingers on my neck, and closed my eyes for the duration of the film.) I have so little time that I resent any film maker who fills two hours of it with garbage, when I had anticipated a feast. So Bruce and I always check reviews before forking over our money or our time. My dad loves _Titanic_. I was moved by the parts I knew to be true--such as the singing of "Nearer my God to Thee". Sure, you could see Jack as a Christ figure. You could also see E.T. as one (and many have written about that, though the screenwriter herself denied having any thought of such a thing). The Gene Hackman character in _The Poisiden Adventure_ is also a Christ figure, and even assumes a crucifixion pose at one point. Christ figures are everywhere. But redemptive characters don't redeem bad movies. Which is not to say that any of the movies I've mentioned are bad--but I'll bet we could even find a way to identify Adam Sandler as a Christ figure in one of his movies. Someone else would have to do that, of course, since I won't take the time to see anything he's done. Sorry, but I am pre-offended. MAYBE someone could persuade me that one of his movies was worth my time, but it would take a lot of persuasion. [Margaret Young] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 14:34:21 -0500 From: Tony Markham Subject: Re: [AML] EVENSON, _Dark Property_ Andrew Hall wrote: > Make sure the kids are safely inside and lock the doors, Brian > Evenson has a new novel out this month Our small college was lucky enough to host a visit and guest lecture by Brian Evenson. He's doing a semester at Syracuse as a guest writer-in-residence and it was a short hop. I got to be his afternoon host. Found him to be pleasant and engaging, not at all someone you would need to hide children from. He was open and, as far as I could tell, totally forthcoming about his relationship with the church and pretty much any question I ventured to ask. I'd like to claim a Mormon Literary first right here and now. Until someone else steps forward, I'm claiming to be the first and possibly only person to have played racquetball with both Brian Evenson _AND_ Jack Weyland. I feel this is an important milestone in bridging the gap between polar opposites in our LDS writing community. Now if only we could arrange a match between Sherry Dew and Elbert Peck, what a wonderful world it could be. Tony Markham Delhi, NY - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #913 ******************************