From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #38 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, April 25 2003 Volume 02 : Number 038 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:45:24 -0700 From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: [AML] Hate Crimes and Literature 7 From: Harlow S Clark Sender: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: aml-list I note with some embarrassment that Tracie Laulusa and Jacob Proffitt both replied to me more than a month ago, and the replies I started still languish in my drafts folder. I wrote quite a bit, but didn't send it, and have decided to send this part out first, rather than try and put my thoughts into one monster post. Speaking of the Latter-day Enquirer I said: The most distressing thing about the article was that he said he=20 had absolutely no remorse about killing the intruder. Hadn't=20 rattled him at all. I wonder if he thought the lesson of Nephi and Laban is kill and don't think about it. Jacob Proffitt replied: > I rather suspect that he was thinking of the lesson taught by=20 > Captain Moroni, Mormon, Ammon and other spiritual military=20 > leaders in the Book of Mormon--people willing to defend=20 > their freedom and the lives of their families. Then Tracie Laulusa said, Sat, 15 Mar 2003 : > Or maybe he was thinking about a little brother sleeping in the=20 > next room, or a sister down the hall, or Elizabeth Storm and=20 > all the other missing children..................... >=20 > Harlow, it appears to me that you were trying to somehow put this=20 > kid in a class with the profile of the kids who were responsible for > Columbine, and other incidents.=20 Not at all. This story was long before Columbine. Though I do wonder if there's a connection between the lack of ability to express remorse for killing someone and the kind of violence we sometimes see erupting in our schools and workplaces. Of course, what the boy said to police could be, as Jacob said, simply bravado. I'm glad I mentioned the story, because Jacob and Tracie's replies got me thinking about why I don't like the story. It's not so much that the boy killed an unarmed intruder, as it is the celebratory tone of the news article. No, wait, one of the reasons I didn't send this a month ago is that that paragraph was supposed to be a conciliatory response to the sarcasm I perceived in Jacob's reply: > For myself, if I were in his shoes, I might be sad for a life=20 > wasted but it wouldn't throw me into a guilt-spiral ending=20 > in a tear-ridden confession of my own worthlessness to live. =20 > I wouldn't need therapy or anything. I never said he was supposed to feel worthless to live, but if you read the story of Nephi and Laban with a careful ear for tone, and ask yourself who's writing the story, you might realize you're reading the words of a fairly old man who's still upset by something he did maybe half a century ago. It's as if he's saying, "If you kill someone, even if the Holy Spirit commands you to, you'll remember it and be troubled by it for the rest of your life." It is not a trivial thing to kill another human being. And it really does bother me that the reporter (or the reporter's editor) presented a story about a boy killing an unarmed intruder without warning as a feel-good story. My one-time colleague at UVSC, Paul Tanner, spent 10 years as a police officer before becoming an English teacher. One=20 semester during the English Dept's night of readings, he read an essay about the time he drew a gun. He said that despite what you see on cop shows most police never draw their guns, and when they do the others come around and express their condolences. He was called one night to respond to a break-in and drew his gun on the intruder, who was hiding in the shadows and wouldn't come out. And Paul was ready to shoot him but a little voice (he didn't say whether it was an audible voice, or a voice of conscience or whatever) told him "Not yet." And Paul said it was a good thing he didn't because the intruder turned out to be a 16-year-old, and things get enormously complicated when you shoot a minor. I contrast Paul's introspection with what I found utterly chilling about the article, the celebratory mood: Here was a good LDS kid who killed an unarmed intruder and the police made only a cursory examination, looking to see what posters he had on his wall and what station his radio was tuned to, because he was such a good LDS kid, and by the way, aren't we a great church to produce such a kid? (That's an accurate reflection of the article's tone.) It's no small thing to kill a person, and for me that article simply reinforced a cultural stereotype seen on TV cop shows and many many (tekel upharsin) movies that casual killing is ok as long as the good guy is the one doing the killing. And if there's not something rather disturbing about reporting a killing as a faith promoting news item, can you imagine the report I've just described, told in the kind of breathless fawning prose you see in celebrity mags in the Ensign's Mormon Journal section? How would you feel to run across it?=20 (My thanks to Eric Samuelsen for an example of such prose in his Jan 3 03 description of the Nedra Roney profile in the January/February 2003 Utah Valley magazine by Jeanette W. Bennett, www.uvmag.com. I read part of the article, and Nedra Roney seems an honorable woman, but the prose was so breathless I walked away from the article thankful she hadn't named one of her many adopted children Micah Roney.) Actually, I did run across a piece in a church magazine about what it means to kill someone. In The Friend on the inside front cover of the July 1997 issue, a piece called "Personal Protection," by Dallin H. Oaks. I find the following two paragraphs deeply deeply moving: >>>>> >From behind the robber, a city bus approached. The young man became distracted, and his gun wavered from my stomach. I realized that with a quick motion I could seize the gun without the likelihood of being shot. But just then the Spirit let me know what would happen if I grabbed that gun: We=92d struggle, and I would turn the gun into the young man=92s chest. It would fire, and he would die. I also understood that I must not have the blood of that young man on my conscience for the rest of my life. <<<<< I remember my first reaction to that talk. I may have been supervising Matthew as he dug pennies out of the Seagull fountain to throw back in, or he may have been doing something else, but it was one of those electrifying moments where I say to myself, did he just say what I thought he did? (Another such moment came while sitting in the Kingston NY chapel half drowsing, about 10:00 p.m., to the lull of Pres. Kimball's voice admonishing us, "Don't kill the little birds that sing in bush and tree" then hearing him say, =93I know that God lives. I know that Jesus Christ lives,=94 said John Taylor, my predecessor, =93for I have seen him.= =94 (May 1978 Ensign, =93Strengthening the Family=97the Basic Unit of the Church,=94 p. 48--Hmm, April conference would have put me in the Batavia chapel--I think, though I'm sure the stake center wasn't there).) It's hard to suggest how deeply I needed to hear Elder Oaks say that. Our culture is suffused with messages about how fun it is to kill other people in a good cause, and I needed to hear someone in general authority over the Church say that even killing someone in self defense is a grave matter that may leave blood on your conscience for the rest of your life. I'm not exaggerating when I say our culture is suffused with messages about how fun it is to kill other people in a good cause.=20 In my original post I said: > One of the oft-recurring archetypes in tv and film thrillers=20 > and cop-shows is the villain so evil and implacable he=20 > (usually, sometimes she) has to be killed--there is no > no safety outside the villain's death. and Jacob replied,=20 > I think you misread the culture again. Movie villains don't die=20 > because there is no safety outside their death--they die because > a court battle and 25 to life isn't a cinematically satisfying > climax. Sure it is. There are lots of films that end with a court battle, but your point is good. I've often noticed that the reason the villain dies is that the filmmaker doesn't want to deal with the legal system in the film, but as a statement of cinematic aims, "Not killing the villain isn't cinematically satisfying" is so cynical you'll almost never hear a director say it. Instead, to justify the killing, the film/novel makes the villain implacable, so dangerous as to inspire no possible sympathy. If we could have sympathy for the dying villain the killing wouldn't be satisfying. Consider John Wayne's late film _The Cowboys_. You know as soon as Bruce Dern comes on screen that he's going to cause a lot of trouble. He's such an implacable villain that he has to be killed, and the way the cowboys become cowmen ("You are cowboys, not cowmen) is by killing first his band of villains, then him. The film nuances his killing by making it more an execution than a situation where he has a fair chance of drawing first as in the typical gunfight sequence. So that killing is not completely satisfying--but the director doesn't want to shake us up too bad. Another of Wayne's late films, maybe his last one, _The Shootist_ nuances the situation even more. He made it while dying of cancer (a gift from his uncle, who was safely testing nuclear bombs upwind all those years his nephews and nieces spent filming in Monument Valley). It's a film about an aging gunfighter dying of cancer, who tries to find a clean well-lighted boarding house to die, but people won't let him be. The doctor (wonderful scene with Jimmy Stewart) describes how his body will break down, and tells him, "If I had your courage I would not die such a death." So he sets up a gunfight with three people who would like to kill him--and, well, you can guess what happens. It's a disturbing film and I found myself wondering about the moral situation of a man who decides to use his death to kill a few bad guys--hey, that's Sampson. (Including a wonderful scene with a barber.) I suppose you could call Sampson the original suicide bomber.=20 But why should it be cinematically satisfying to watch people die violently, let alone more cinematically satisfying than a court battle and prison sentence? I think of two films that feature utterly nasty implacably evil adults who torture children. The children eventually triumph, but without killing the adults. Every time I see _Matilda_ I'm moved by the scene where the evil principal tries to flee the school and all the children pelt her with food. And I'm moved that Danny DeVito did not feel it necessary to kill her off. This past weekend I saw _Holes_. The tv ads are so atrocious--light bursting forth from the hole and from the trunk--that I didn't want to see it, didn't want to see Dizndey ruin another great book. Fortunately that ad was just crap. The icky adults are still there torturing children, and again I'm grateful Louis Sachar didn't feel the need to kill the evil adults off, but let the criminal justice system take care of them. Cinematically that is much more satisfying than killing them off would be. And I find myself resonating with stories that show mercy and compassion rather than trying to create cinematic satisfaction by throwing the villains out the window of a skyscraper and onto the hood of a police cruiser. And I find myself seeking out stories that don't hold the life of a villain cheap, that don't make the villain so utterly evil that we cheer when he (usually he--sometimes she) is slaughtered by the good guy. BTW, I saw a play about mercy tonight, about the need to extend it even to our enemies (a virtue taught by the Mother). _Stones_ is a wonderful play produced with a sense of full wonder. Plays through Saturday 50 West Center Street - Orem, Utah 84057 - 801-225-3800 7:30 p.m. Harlow S. Clark - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 02:34:27 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Validity of Memory and Nonfiction Annette Lyon wrote: > > (In defense of the Dr. Phil women--dropping his name and quoting his > show might have been an attempt to help another man understand what they > meant, not the crux of their argument.) I don't think so. They were all but ignoring me as they discussed it. They made it sound like his statement was the reason they believed what they believed, not just some useful information to convince me. - -- 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, 24 Apr 2003 11:54:55 -0600 From: Margaret Young Subject: RE: [AML] Irreantum and Babies Congratulations Darlene! I'll be honest about pregnancy and writing. I never stopped writing--but I found that my work during my various pregnancies was consistently lousy. I wrote an entire novel while expecting my 2nd daughter, and tossed it into the trash shortly after her birth. I found that pregnancy is a great writer's block. It's the epidural for the brain. However, I DID get back into the swing of things after each of my four deliveries. The key was (as it always is) reading excellent writing. For me, that meant going to _The Best American Short Stories_ series (contemporary stuff--contemporary writers need to be reading contemporary writing). I'd go through one story after another until suddenly something clicked, some idea started hatching, and I had a story gestating. Nursing time was always reading time for me. And my kids' nap times were always writing time. If I could do it over again, I'd put a sign on my door letting neighbors know that the hours of 1-3 every afternoon were my writing time. No calls, no visits, no hard feelings. Obviously, though, when nap time ended, writing time had to end too. That was actually a good thing, because I'd usually have to stop in the midst of the writing rush, and then could hardly wait to get back to it the following day. ________________ Margaret Young 1027 JKHB English Department Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602-6280 Tel: 801-422-4705 Fax: 801-422-0221 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:36:47 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: [AML] Context and Artistic Appropriateness (was: Temple in Literature) ___ Harlow ___ | I can't resist asking, how did we get from sex to hygiene? ___ Both are deemed inappropriate when portrayed graphically. Both can be seen in medical or biological terms without being offensive. I don't, for instance, find the biology of the digestive track offensive. Indeed I find it a miraculous device. However I don't want to see full color pictures of people making bowel movements on a toilet. I consider it inappropriate. The reason this relates to sex is that the same *way* of thinking relative to sex is the same. It isn't that it is "bad" but rather there are ways of portraying it that are appropriate and inappropriate. Further that this appropriateness is determined external to the text proper. i.e. the reason the biological discussion is appropriate isn't because of internal relevancy but external relevancy. The main reason I moved to a more "scatological" discussion rather than a sexual one is to avoid the connotation of the old pornography thread. I think this issue is more fundamental. You'll also note that this relates to my comments on postmodernism from last week. I am arguing for an absolute ethical standard, but one that is based upon an essential contamination of the text by its context. ___ Harlow ___ | Surely, Clark, you're aware that there are people who devote | their lives to collecting detailed stories of rape and torture | in all its glorious Technicolor. ___ Yes, and what makes that appropriate or inappropriate is the external context. i.e. such tales are appropriate at a UN conference on human rights but not as a form of entertainment. Recognize that I'm *not* arguing that "relevancy" isn't what determines appropriateness. I don't think there is some "thus shall you do" that determines appropriate literature. I *do* think there are absolute ethics regarding what is appropriate. Further I think that this is judged by the *context* of the text and not the text itself. [Clark Goble] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:52:20 EDT From: BroHam000@aol.com Subject: [AML] Anne Perry Letter Link [Linda's suggested subject line: Wish I Were Anne Perry.] Glorious prose and glorious visions. Here's the link: http://www.meridianmagazine.com/anneperry/030424april.html Linda Hyde - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:04:38 -0600 From: "Clark Goble" Subject: RE: [AML] Self-Indulgent Authors ___ Michael ___ | Gene Wolf looks like a different manifestation of that | discussion. My question is, why on earth make your writing | hard to read? ___ If it is hard to read for hardness sake, then I think that silly. But perhaps an analogy might be in order for why some like texts that are "hard reading." Consider Jazz. Now probably most people can appreciate one of the great early Jazz artists like Louis Armstrong. Probably relatively few can appreciate Miles Davis. (Ignoring for the moment his nadir in the 80's) Why? _Birth of Cool_ is one of the greatest records of all time but it is much more difficult to listen to than Louis Armstrong singing "Mac the Knife." I love both, but I like different *styles*. I really appreciate listening to the complexities of what Miles Davis, Thelonius Monk, or Charlie Parker are doing. Further, to understand what they are doing in part benefits from seeing how they are reacting. There is a density to the *style* of their play which some love and others don't. I think the same is true of literature. I've not read Gene Wolf, so I can't speak for him. But I enjoy stories with labyrinth plots, switches, and lots of complexities. One of my all time favorite books is Umberto Eco's _Foucalt's Pendulum_ which is nothing if not complex in content. I also enjoy rather straightforward plots. I like simple poetry like Emily Dickenson. I like more complex poems as well. (I consider the metaphysical poets like Donne complex, but others might not) Each engages me in a different fashion. Sometimes I really like reading a book where the artist is so conscious of the text *as* text that they play with style, just like the Jazz greats did. While it was never intended to be that complex, I think reading Shakespeare or even the King James Bible fits that bill as well. It is very difficult reading relative to most modern literature. But I love the way it is written as much as I enjoy the content. There is a power to the words that transcends the main message. It is music to my ears. Complexities of style can be beautiful on their own terms just as simplicities of style can. I can appreciate a Zen garden. I can appreciate baroque architecture. Each is appropriate on its own terms. [Clark Goble] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:39:27 -0600 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Artist's Personal Lives, or just Good Readin' Re: Harlow Clark's post (see below) I've always marveled at the possibility of a departed friend or loved one on the other side of the veil guiding and leading us in our decisions, including the selection of our art. (Though I admit I kind of suspected that some of the below thought were just little spoutings from your brain and not really decisions and or opinions). I have to ask everyone. Did you all hear stories in your missions like the following story? Here it is: Two sisters were tracting in an area and were having little success. Then, a young lady approached them and, before the missionaries could even ask her name, she pointed out her house to them and said that her parents would like to meet them. They followed the directions, and, when the parents opened the door, the sisters were quickly admitted in without much question. After a minute or two, they explained that the young woman directed them to the house, and the parents looked shocked and confused. After a few minutes, they began to weep, which made the missionaries feel a little uncomfortable. Then they explained that their oldest daughter, who matched the description of the young lady the sisters had met, passed away the year before... One of the RM sisters in my 3rd area told me that this happened to her and a companion, and I remember just staring in awe. But, and I don't mean to question the integrity of this lovely RM, is that just another 3 Nephites type of legend? I'm so curious. Anyway, it's interesting to imagine that a departed one would guide us to certain literature, etc. Like, I wonder who made me interested in seeing Godspell for the first time? Was it an angel? Or was it just the fact that an ex-boyfriend of mine was in the high school production of it a few years earlier, and I borrowed the video from the drama club just so I could gawk at him awhile longer? Yes, I think that was it. We do have a divine nature, though. So despite the fact that I chose to watch it just to see Brian Norberg, I was moved by it because of the play's theme, message, material, etc. Somehow, life, after lining me up with some great support groups through AA and NA and teaching me that I had a Higher Power, decided to show me a little bit about Jesus Christ and let the teachings of the Savior do it's work on me. I was more prepared for the good news of Christ than I'd ever been, and this time talk of Christ pierced my soul and I was forever changed. Uh oh, by saying that life had prepared me, etc., I'm now acknowledging that it really may have been an angel, aren't I? Or is mortality really just a strange tapestry of people and experience, and, though I hate the word coincidence, maybe it was just coincidence. Or maybe Brian Norberg, besides being a very cute boy with a lovely baritone voice, was one of my angels without really knowing it. I kind of think the latter. Where is this going? Don't know. It brings us back to the miracles and providence discussion regarding the miracles surrounding the return of Elizabeth Smart. All I can say is, if _Bone Game_ changed you, then so many things could be a part of it. Angels, providence, coincidence, etc. _Franny and Zooey_ did the same for me, and Zooey so deserves to have his mouth washed out with soap. I love the book and so glad I read it, though, the last time I read it, I had a white out pen in hand and made it nice a PG (sorry if that's blasphemy to someone out there. I hope that Salinger isn't on this list). I guess we can be so grateful for the experiences we have that help us change and grow, even if they may offend a little. I worry when we seek them out, though. Okay, I should be done, but I have to share this. I'm a stay-at-home mom, and I talk to myself quite a bit. [MOD: I've extracted a personal introduction here so that I can send it out under a separate subject line.] Okay, intro done. Next. While some of the views I've expressed on this list have probably seemed pretty conservative, especially with reference to material in films, etc., I can not deny for one second how much I have learned from some literature and film that contained some grit. Like I said, J.D. Salinger's _Franny and Zooey_ was just life-changing for me. Here's what's been on my brain lately, though. Do some Latter-Day Saints who are trying not to be stuck in a fluffy little bubble seek out grit in their reading and viewing? Do we ever tell ourselves the lie "Out there is the real world, and I need to be acquainted with it"? Do we ever make it a little mission of ours to find the outer limits of liberality in Mormonism/Latter-Day Saintism and hang out at those outer limits? Okay, I'm getting very Buffy here with my speak, so I may be losing some of you. Still, I'd love some feedback. Here's my pity story. I, like some of you, came from the dregs of moral society. I realized a few days ago that my sister and I were rarely allowed to buy new clothing, but Mom somehow had the money she needed for a good stash of dope, liquor, and porn. Funny, isn't it? Yet, the yucky experiences we had as kids helped make Christina and I who we are, and I think we turned out better than would be expected under the circumstances. So, I can't really complain at this point. But, when the dregs pop up in books and film, I'm inclined to either comfortably embrace them, because it's kind of home to me. Or else, more often these days, because I've been washed by the blood the Savior, I want to run, and run fast. What I'm saying, or asking, or something-ing is, why do people run to dregs or seek them out? Why is it so important for some LDS people to "make sure they're well rounded" and get their daily dose of dirt? It may be an obstacle which, in the overcoming of it, will bring us closer to Christ. But, we might not overcome. Dianna Graham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:39:27 -0600 From: "David and Dianna Graham" Subject: [AML] Introductions: Dianna Graham [MOD: Extracted from another post from Dianna.] Wait, maybe I should back up and introduce myself. Scott Bronson told me I should do that sometime. I'm a BYU graduate in Acting, an unemployed actress/singer, and the proud mom of a gorgeous 15 month old girl named Sophie. My husband, David, is a tall, blonde, and very cute BYU graduate in Film Directing (advertising minor) who is also rather brilliant at Production Design (AKA Art Direction). He was the Production Designer for Roots and Wings, if that impresses you at all. (Oh, I hope it does, because he worked pretty hard on that, and we gave up a lot of furniture during the shoot while I was pregnant and laying in bed with a migraine, so I couldn't read, and I was bored stiff and didn't have a TV to watch...). Anyway, we're trapped in lovely Orem, UT, for the time being. If any film-makers out there need a great Art Director, let us know. No one who has ever worked with David has ever regretted it. Of course, he'd be a little embarrassed to know that I've just told you all this. Oh, yeah, I'm pretty busy with the baby, but I'm a decent actress too. Thought I might add that since there's a major shortage on talented actresses... ;) Dianna Graham - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:29:45 -0700 From: "Richard B.Johnson" Subject: RE: [AML] The New List Please don't leave this list though. I need something to stir up my dormant (un-pent-up) aggression. Richard B. Johnson; Husband, Father, Grandfather, Actor, Director, Puppeteer, Teacher, Playwright, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool. I sometimes think that the last persona is most important and most valuable. Http://PuppenRich.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com > [mailto:owner-aml-list@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Thom Duncan > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 2:08 AM > To: aml-list@lists.xmission.com > Subject: RE: [AML] The New List > > > As one of the eight people who has already expressed interest, if we > can't find another person willing to jump full-tilt into our world of > frenzy, I promise to post twice as much as I normally would (I got a lot > of pent-up agression ). > > Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:34:32 -0500 From: Linda Adams Subject: [AML] Copyright Law & Horizon [MOD: This is not a post that I would normally allow out. It comes very close to being condescending, insulting, and personally judgmental of what Linda has said. ] Thank you, Jonathan, for this preface. My post was one sent too quickly, which seems to have happened to me several times last week. I half-expected my note to get MOD-rejected because of its nature, but it went out, which is all right--I did send it. What's printed can't be un-printed, so there it is. But I'll try not to make things any worse. I spent much of last week in a far too emotional state, as I tried to clear two special names for their temple work, which we did Saturday. It's a 4-hr. drive each way from St. Louis, and we experienced great joy and fulfillment there. I think, in part because of the work we were trying to get done, I was too stressed to send coherent email on this topic; it happened to push a hot button. Last I checked, though, human beings are allowed sore spots as long as we are in the process of healing. Healing requires time. This particular issue is still fresh, but I assure all of you I am working on it. <> Glen, I believed my context was clear. Taken in context, my statement "I am NOT happy" meant only that I am displeased to discover a book has been received into store inventory *after* everything I went through to pay for and have delivered to my home what I believed to be was every last remaining copy of my book. I have made no claim that Horizon shipped that book (I only know where it did *not* come from). The above statement is not an adequate basis upon which to judge my personal state of happiness, nor was it intended as such. I am, indeed, a rather *happy* person. I have a wonderful husband and six terrific children who bring me great joy and for which I have deep gratitude. I study the Gospel for 30-60 minutes daily, minimum, and do all other things required for my PERSONAL happiness. However, that does not make me immune to suffering caused by other individuals against me. I will forgive Mr. Crowther in time, I am sure of it; others have hurt me far more deeply than this and I have forgiven them. Please bear that in mind. << it may have been committed by the party that did not pay for Horizon Publishing while Duane and his wife were on a mission with his company "sold". I don't know and really don't have much interest in knowing. I care for both of you and are saddened by the anger, resentment, and bitterness I see in your post.>> I am saddened by your unwillingness to hear me out, but I hold no hard feelings toward you for your opinions. However, the particular issues I have discussed do, in fact, refer ONLY to Horizon. You admit you have no knowledge of the details. But I do. <> Exactly. "At a fair profit for the author" is the key phrase. I don't wish to invite legal difficulties, and likely have said too much already. I will post what I believe I can, which are documented facts with solid evidentiary support. I am not a lawyer, but I have consulted with three separate legal firms in two states for advisement, all of whom agreed I have a valid claim against Horizon. I have also done extensive research in the matter of copyright law. I invite interested parties to visit their local libraries or search the Internet for further explanation or verification of the points I will mention here. For those who have not been following my saga regarding the fate of my book: Cornerstone Publishing printed it in June of 2000. A legal mess ensued between them and Horizon over the following two years. As part of the fallout of that legal messiness, the existing *copies* of my book were given to Horizon as part of an asset transfer settlement. However, my contract did NOT transfer with the inventory. A book falls under Intellectual Property Law. It is not the same as if a paper company received cases of paper towels which they may then resell, and the paper towel maker can't say Boo about it. Paper towels are Real Property. Intellectual Property (generally, works for which one is paid royalties) is completely different. Books, like films or videos (as discussed here recently so expertly by Jongiorgi), have particular rights which may be sold to others or retained by the author, which is called "copyright." My signed contract with *Cornerstone,* which allowed *Cornerstone* the right to print, sell, and distribute _Prodigal Journey,_ became null and void upon the bankruptcy due to the specific terms of *that* contract, thereby returning all (ALL) rights to me. Therefore, I, and only I, possess the right to SELL and DISTRIBUTE this work. I have this in writing. You are likely aware that Duane Crowther is not a young man fresh to the publishing world. He is an experienced businessman who has kept his company, Horizon, in business for upwards of 30 years (someone else can look the exact figure up). Those facts alone demonstrate that it is extremely unlikely that he is ignorant of basic concepts and laws in the business of publishing, or his business could not have lasted. However, I make no actual claim as to what Mr. Crowther actually is or is not aware of. Upon receiving stewardship of the physical copies of *my* _intellectual property,_ Horizon *should* have contacted me first thing to arrange for a _contract,_ which, if signed by me, would have granted them the proper rights to legally advertise, sell, and distribute the work. Such a contract would provide for as few or as many rights as both company and author agree upon. If they had followed this standard, basic procedure in the business, there would be little or no problem today. In this public post I must keep to facts for which I have hard evidence. I cannot report anything said in telephone conversation between Mr. Crowther and I. For your perusal, based solely upon what I can prove by producing the appropriate dated documents and/or other physical evidence, this is the order of events that took place: 1. Horizon received inventory of my book. 2. Horizon advertised my book and began offering it for sale in their catalog. 3. *I* wrote to Horizon to ask why they were doing so without a contract with me, concerned that they had not previously arranged for rights, neither had they arranged to pay me anything at all at any time. 4. Horizon _then_ sent me a contract. 5. I did not sign the contract. [They offered less than half the royalty terms I had been paid by Cornerstone, for one thing; the terms were not more favorable than retaining rights and printing the book myself. It also requested the publishing and reprinting rights, which I had not offered, and was unwilling to sell to them because I am seeking to take it to the national market, which fact I made clear in previous letters to Horizon. ...But I digress.] 6. I sent Horizon a certified letter, with a copy sent to my attorney, notifying them that I was not interested in their terms and would not be selling them any rights, and requested that they stop sales immediately and remove my book from their advertising. 7. Horizon responded by letter, asking me again to sign the contract, or if not, the remaining 1972 copies would be destroyed, or I could purchase all the copies *if* I paid in cash by a date two weeks out from the date of their letter, at a specified price. 8. A discrepancy of about 200 copies exists between my extensive Cornerstone statement (listing all sales and inventory of _Prodigal Journey,_ *including* the quantity seized for transfer to Horizon), and the quantity listed by Horizon's letter. I have not proven what happened to the missing copies at this date. 9. Upon the advisement of my attorney, I chose the option to purchase the books rather than pursue litigation against Horizon for violation of US Copyright law, for the reasons listed in my previous post. 10. The books were shipped to my home in March 2003, after Horizon received prompt payment by cashier's check, as requested. They are now on two pallets in my basement. 11. I have never at any time signed any agreement with Horizon allowing them any rights to my work; in fact I have stated the opposite in writing. All of my correspondence with Horizon is signed personally by Mr. Duane Crowther, and all of my letters were addressed to him. 12. Last week, a copy of _Prodigal Journey_ showed up in an LDS bookstore (not DB) in California, just received in stock. I am in the process of researching its origin. I did not send it. Those are the facts. Not emotions, not hearsay, just the facts I can prove. I will not speculate further upon these facts in this forum more than I already have. I apologize for publicly drawing conclusions. <> I am glad for you that it helped you. Knowing what I do of the man through *my* direct experience, having had lengthy conversations with him on the telephone, not merely a single handshake by accidental meeting (although I experienced that too), I *personally* cannot accept his work with the same ecstatic dedication as you do. I'm aware I'm not the only person on AML-List that has been treated poorly by Horizon, but I'll leave it to them to speak up if they choose. <> I have, before you mentioned it. It's a beautiful CD and I'm happy to have it in my home. I also believe Christ lived with joy; joy in the laughter of little children and their delight, joy in nature, joy in the sinners who repented, and many other things. I for one am eternally grateful for the work of our Redeemer that makes repentance possible, that life is eternal, and that Jesus can remove the pain of all things, both self-inflicted sin and the pain of damages caused by others. I look to Him for healing and for grace, with faith and trust in Him that it will come. My testimony of this Gospel stands firm and unshaken. Linda Adams 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 #38 *****************************