MoLit
By Jana on May 12, 2006
There are few venues for Mormons to publish their literary efforts–Dialogue and Sunstone only publish a handful of works each year and magazines like Wasatch Review and Irreantum have struggled against hurdles of funding and finding volunteers to staff their publications. Perhaps the Net will provide the space where MoLit will be truly successful. Sites like A Motley Vision, Segullah and Six Writers & a Frog are expanding the reach of LDS lit. The newest addition to this group of LDS literary efforts is Popcorn Popping–belying the cutesy title of their site is the seriousness of their intent to foster emerging writers.
While I applaud the efforts of the PopcornPoppers and other Mormon literary ventures, I am a bit jaded about the state of MoLit. While there is some amazing fiction published by LDS authors (much of it on the remainder table, unfortunately), most of the novels produced by LDS publishing houses are poorly-edited, fatih-promoting, and numbingly formulaic. The thrillers don’t excite, the romances lack charm, and the humor isn’t funny. Most of my Church friends who like to read don’t bother with Mormon novels, knowing full well that they won’t satisfy a reader who craves ‘Literature.’
So I wonder if the web will really impact the state of Mormon Literature? Will Spencer Kimball’s prophecy that “we will yet have Miltons and Shakespeares of our own” ever be fulfilled? If so, how do you envision it coming to pass?
I think the huge problem is the term “LDS fiction.” I think they should just write a good story and if the church is in it, so be it, but it shouldn’t be the main focus.
Comment # 1 by annegb | May 13, 2006 | Reply
While I agree, I don’t think that’s too out of sync with the publishing world in general. A couple months ago I was reading the editorial page of the New York Times, where an African American writer was decrying the state of African American literature (as so classified by Borders and Barnes & Noble). He wrote that he was looking at the African American lit section, and most was pornography and gansta writing.
I don’t think the state of general publishing is an excuse for us as a people (especially with a prophetic call to create such artists), but I don’t think it’s a uniquely Mormon thing. I do think, like Anne said, the obsession with writing the great Mormon novel is a hinderance to our producing great literature; the best Mormon novel I’ve read is Udall’s _The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint_, where the Mormonism wasn’t self-conscious, but instead organic, and the writing was as good as anything published in the national market.
How do we produce that? I don’t know; I’m a lawyer rather than the jazz musician or writer that I wanted to be at various times in my life, but I don’t generally feel bad about that.
Comment # 2 by samdb | May 14, 2006 | Reply
I am totally going to buy that book on the strength of your recommendation.
You know, now that you say it, I feel that way about a lot of African American lit. E. Lynn Harris bothers me for that reason. Perhaps it resonates in a way with black people that I don’t understand.
I always try it, but sometimes I’m put off, not offended, but it seems to get in the way of the story to me.
I loved The Emporer of– did I spell that right, whatever, Ocean Park, but I seem to recall something that bothered me.
I’ve gotten into LDS fiction since I’ve argued with the writers of Six LDS etc., read a book by a woman named Vianne Prestwich, which I would recommend, if I could remember the name.
Comment # 3 by annegb | May 14, 2006 | Reply
Well, I think the main thing that keeps people from writing good Mo lit is the fact that it takes more work than it’s worth. And our culure (American, Mormon) militates against that. Mormons are so busy, they have so many things clamoring for their attention (family, church, job, PTA), they just don’t have time to actually learn the craft of writing. Because there is a craft, and you have to learn it just like you learn the craft of carpentry or computer programming.
It’s taken me years of study and practice to get to the point where I could start really knowing how to write. But still, I have to put in gobs of time to make something that I think would actually be worth someone’s time to read. And then, is anyone going to pay me for it? No. Not unless I can sell my contibutor’s copies as a wicked profit.
So, there’s no money in it. There’s no prestige. And I’ve found that as I write better and better stuff (assuming that I do), I have to go deeper and deeper into dark areas. And when a Mormon goes into dark areas and then publishes about his/her journey - sometimes they get kicked out of of the community. And sometimes it doesn’t matter that they get kicked out of the community because they haven’t felt a part of it in such a long time.
Yeah. I think I’m talking about myself here (even though I haven’t been kicked out of anything [I think they appreciate the regular tithing check]). The more I explore the world through writing, the more I don’t resemble the Mormons around me. Yet, I think I’m becoming more authentically myself.
Which is probably the last point to make. Mormon writing rarely goes beyond ill-prepared talks, or half-baked stories in the Ensign. People (in general) think that you can dash off something in a moment of inspiration and have a piece of art on your hands. It ain’t so. It may be important to you, and it may be nice for the people close to you get a glimpse of you that way. But it isn’t literature. Literature takes blood sweat and tears. And you won’t get any money or prestige. So if you aren’t taking the journey because you love the journey itself, you probably aren’t going to put the requisite work in.
Sorry, you touched on a sore spot.
Comment # 4 by Stephen Carter | May 15, 2006 | Reply
I don’t know, those people on Sis LDS Writers say they take a long time to write their books.
But I like your last paragraph. Very good.
Comment # 5 by annegb | May 15, 2006 | Reply
IMO many Mormons use that call “we will yet have Miltons and Shakespeares of our own” in the same way they might vow “we will yet have a a winning football team of our own,” and for all the same reasons folks vow to have a winnning football team, including the tribalistic ones. Of course, given a choice between a winning football team and a Shakespeare and/or a Milton, I suspect most Mormons would choose the winning football team (preferably one that doesn’t play on Sundays and still wins a championship–that would certainly spotlight our Mormon lifestyle). And any sponsoring institution understands in its heart of hearts that a winning football team is more profitable than a Milton or Shakespeare.
Furthermore, as Stephen points out, there’s some danger to the culture (and to the artist) in having artists writing out of cultural high consciousness. A Mormon Milton and certainly a Mormon Shakespeare would take his/her culture to task, not sparing the tropic rod.
That said, I am extremely optimistic about the future of Mormon arts and letters. Mormons will see extraordinary writers emerge, though they may not match the idealized portraits that many have painted in their minds when they visualize their particular Mormon, church-going Shakespeare. Furthermore, I believe we should work, worship, care for each other, and create as if the coming of such artists is a done deal and not worry so much. In most cultures, these people emerge inevitably. Why should the Mormon culture expect it will be an exception?
Comment # 6 by P. G. Karamesines | May 16, 2006 | Reply
Well said, P.G.
The major reason behind with my involvement with both A Motley Vision and Popcorn Popping is to foster an environment where there’s more of a ferment of Mormon culture. I figure that what I can do best is add to a climate that will lead to a Kafka or an Eminescu (Romania’s great poet).
Neither artist was really in the exact middle or on the forefront of the national/ethnic cultures they were part of, but both benefited from the intellectual climate that both sparked and nourished their individual genius.
Comment # 7 by William Morris | May 16, 2006 | Reply
Interesting. Just the other day on another Blog I posed the question: “When will Mormonism produce a Philip Roth?” Roth doesn’t write “Jewish novels” per se, but the characters in his fiction are largely Jewish and have a worldview that is largely informed by Jewish Culture. Besides “love”, “sex”, and “death”, a major theme in nearly every Roth novel has to do with the tension that exists between the self and the group (family, religion, culture, etc.), the struggle for independence and identity, or how to define oneself within or without the protective group as well as to “others” (i.e. non-Jews or Gentiles). Roth’s “Jewishness” (if that’s a word?) is omnipresent, but none of his novels could be described as “Jewish novels” in the way normally clasify “Mormon novels”. (Just as, I imagine, we wouldn’t classify “Edgar Mint” as a Mormon novel.) Most important though, Roth isn’t afraid of exploring the dark places in his own (or his character’s) psyches as any reader of Portnoy’s Complaint or Sabbath’s Theatre (or any Roth novel) could attest. The results are pretty good, if the people that vote on such things as Pulitzers, Pen/Faulkners, and National Book Awards are any indication.
Stephen Carter pretty much summed up the problem with writing good Mormon Fiction: return on investment and “exploring dark areas” being the prime suspects. Levi Peterson produced the great “The Backslider”, a fine novel by any definition (Mormon or otherwise). It overcomes the second stumbling block (dark areas) with flying colors, but I wonder about its ROI? How many of you have or would recommend it to your TBM friends?
On the other hand, Lund’s “light” books are a commercial success. Lund’s success is probably an exception rather than a rule (I imagine most “light” fiction available at DB have lousy sales), but it still seems good Mormon fiction (like most LDS Art) will forever struggle with a Catch 22 that pits authentic writing against good sales.
The only answer, in my opinion, is to do what Udall and Roth have done, and not write specifically for their Cultural audience, but to humanity at large.
Comment # 8 by Matt Thurston | May 16, 2006 | Reply
Has anyone read Walter Kirn’s “Thumbsucker”. I enjoyed the movie, although it excised all of the “Mormon stuff” from the novel. I read the novel after seeing the movie and enjoyed it quite a bit, enough that I’d gladly read another Kirn novel someday. It feels like an authentic work, except for the aforementioned “Mormon stuff”. Anyone else have the same reaction? The Mormons stuff is dark, but doesn’t feel authentic. The famous Lloyd-Bentson-to-Dan-Quayle quote comes to mind: “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy…”
Comment # 9 by Matt Thurston | May 16, 2006 | Reply
I read a quote by Wallace Stegner–something like this : “It’s impossible to write Mormon fiction because there’s just too much to explain.”
I think it was in clive scott owen’s book, Following the Wrong God Home.
Comment # 10 by annegb | May 16, 2006 | Reply
IF the Mormon Church ever has a Milton or Shakespeare it won’t be for long because s/he will soon be excommunicated from the church. The church doesn’t like messiness, dark themes or lots of nasty questions into “unauthorized areas”, three components to any great novel. I’m afraid “Charley” is about as great as any Mormon novel will ever be.
badmormon
Comment # 11 by Gordon Hill | May 17, 2006 | Reply
Im not sure if LDS culture will ever have a Shakespeare, but I dont think the web will impact Literature much, Mormon or not. No decent writer would use the web as a media. The same is true about Journalism. Only those that cant find real journalism jobs write for the web.
Comment # 12 by Darryl | May 18, 2006 | Reply
Darryl, What about the Daily Kos and Huffingtion. Our best journalists are now on the web because mainstream journalists have had to sell their soul to the corporate robber barons in order to get a job in the journalism industry.
The web is where we now find the real “unfiltered” news and it doesn’t pretend to be “fair and balanced”
Badmormon
Comment # 13 by Gordon Hill | May 21, 2006 | Reply
“IF the Mormon Church ever has a Milton or Shakespeare it won’t be for long because s/he will soon be excommunicated from the church”
This is a rather narrow view of both the LDS Church and of literature, imo.
There are already Mormons writing “dark, messy” content who haven’t been excommunicated c.f. Eric Samuelsen, Orson Scott Card, Margaret Young and John Bennion.
But that’s beside the point.
If great Mormon-themed cultural products fail to arise, the fault will lie not with the intitutional church (I’m not saying that it isn’t a factor in the equation — just that it seems that many commentators attribute much more weight to it than it deserves when it comes to the cultural arena), but with Mormon consumers who can’t get past the LaBute/Evenson vs. Weyland/Lund dichotomy.
I see a lot of commentary about this, but little recognition that the field of Mormon culture is rather wide and that there is a lot of good work being done in the ‘faithful but not ducking questions or the messiness of reality’ middle.
Sunstone, Dialoge and Irreantum continue to help this field develop, and yet they don’t seem to have the influence one would expect for a publishing category that is now 30 years old i.e. in terms of young authors gaining traction and getting more of their work published.
——————
Regarding the Web and literature:
The Web is the only hope for niche literatures, imo. It won’t replace the need for print publishing, but it is the most effective way to develop communities of interest that can support the modest yet crucial efforts that organizations like the AML, Sunstone, MHA, etc. engage in and that provide a needed place for artists and scholars to share ideas, receive criticism and encouragement, earn publicity, etc.
Comment # 14 by William Morris | May 22, 2006 | Reply
William Morris Wrote:
“If great Mormon-themed cultural products fail to arise, the fault will lie not with the intitutional church ”
I write:
I’d tend to agree with this. In fact, in a way, I think that the Church should continue in its milktoast stance toward Mormon literature and its insistence on orthodoxy. I think I’m a better writer because I had to rage against that machine. I had to find out that my life was defined by the Church, and then go on my own quest for my spirituality.
Of course, when I did that, I felt quite forsaken by the Church and its people. I felt completely alone and had to forge myself in isolation, not looking for any affirmation from other sources. That struggle turned into some of my writing.
If I had not had to struggle, if I had not had to take complete responsibilty for my own soul, I don’t think I would have much at all to offer the world except some warmed over, second rate Mormon Journal attempts.
I remember Ingmar Bergman writing that he appreciated being brought up in a strictly religious home because it gave him something to push against.
Perhaps if we are not able to break away from reliance on prefab stories, which are fed to us on a daily basis from the television, newspaper and pulpit, we will never uncover our own voices and stories.
Comment # 15 by stephencarter | May 23, 2006 | Reply
Stephen:
I understand what you are saying and certainly agree that you’ve turned your experiences into some fine writing.
And to a certain extent all writers are alone.
However, I see the struggle differently. I think the push isn’t just against certain Mormonicities (one of which could be the liberal approach to Mormonism that Sunstone typifies), but also against certain aspects of society.
Too me it’s much more radical to affirm* certain aspects of Mormon theology, culture and experience than to react against them. Let’s face it — reacting against religious strictures is pretty de riguer in literature and in the cultural circles that form
I also think that uncovering ones own voice in the lone wilderness is a bit overrated — it’s too author as genius, as struggler, as Romantic with a capital ‘R.’
I have this suspicion that should she or he arise the true genius of Mormon literature will be less in the Evenson/LaBute mold and more in the Tolstoy/Kafka/Eminescu one. But, of course, that’s not really a fair dichotomy to set up so never mind. All I’m saying is that whoever it is is probably going to need to find much joy in Mormon culture/history/experience. Not that you (Stephen) or other writers don’t or won’t.
But I think that the current publishing categories and cultural trends are inimical to the flowering of a true native genius.
* Affirm isn’t necessarily the correct word here because I’m as allergic to didacticism as much as any good literary-trained critic should be. Perhaps ‘fruitfully explore and represent’ would be a better term. Or ‘extend and give depth too.’
Comment # 16 by William Morris | May 23, 2006 | Reply
I like the way you put this, William.
When I wrote my comment, I made sure to write only my own story. I realize that my formation is in no way the only route to writing. I’m actually very interested to hear other people’s stories of their own journeys, especially when they differ from my own.
I certainly understand the dichotomy you’re talking about (Weyland/Evenson type thing). I’ve felt the pressure to push my writing into certain directions in order to fulfill the ideological expectations of my perceived audience. But happily, I’ve begun to learn to disregard their expectations. And I think I write better when I’m able to do that.
Thus, sometimes, I sound like a faithful Mormon, and sometimes I don’t. That doesn’t bug me as much as it used to. I find it freeing to give a voice to many different parts of me. They all have something interesting to say.
I think the only constant element in my writing is that I have to push one of my own boundaries. I’ve found that it’s very unhelpful to try to push other people’s boundaries as I know nothing about them. So your last paragraph rings true to me. To fruitfully explore and extend and give depth to my own experience as a Mormon is always my main focus.
Not that I’m campaigning for Mormon Milton. I just like to talk about myself.
Comment # 17 by stephencarter | May 23, 2006 | Reply
William wrote:
The Web is the only hope for niche literatures, imo. It won’t replace the need for print publishing, but it is the most effective way to develop communities of interest that can support the modest yet crucial efforts that organizations like the AML, Sunstone, MHA, etc. engage in and that provide a needed place for artists and scholars to share ideas, receive criticism and encouragement, earn publicity, etc.
I write:
This resonates with me. Building community is one thing the web does really well. Popcorn Popping does good work along this line by getting our writing starts out there and receiving feedback on them. It’s like an online writers workshop (without all the tuition and fees).
However, I have a hard time seeing worthwhile nice literature getting published on the web from an analysis of my own habits and experience. When I’m writing something to be published on paper a lot more work goes into it. Then it goes through an editor, back to me for changes, back to the editor, and then back to me for ultra fine tuning. Then it goes through one more editor. This extensive editing process is one of the reasons good writing emerges (I highly recommend both the editors at Sunstone and Dialogue, by the way. I don’t know how the editors at other magazines work.).
It’s too easy to publish something to the web. I would tend to put my writing up before it was ready. Putting something in print is a lot more work intensive, and therefore makes you think twice about committing something to print, and it gives you time to ruminate on what you’ve written. And from what I’ve seen in online journals, this seems to be the case for other writers as well. The stuff that gets published on the web tends to be a good start, but not fully realized.
Comment # 18 by stephencarter | May 23, 2006 | Reply
Not enjoying the Miracle Life of Edgar Mint. The other two haven’t gotten here yet.
Comment # 19 by annegb | May 28, 2006 | Reply
I just thought Edgar Mint was funny. It didn’t seem particularly Mormon. Just funny.
If you’re heading into The Backslider next I have just two words of advice. Buckle up.
Comment # 20 by Stephen Carter | May 29, 2006 | Reply
why? language?
Comment # 21 by annegb | May 30, 2006 | Reply
No. It’ll just knock your socks off how well-written it is and how deftly it deals with the darker sides of Mormonism.
Comment # 22 by stephencarter | May 31, 2006 | Reply
Yeah, I’m about a fourth of the way through it now. Dang good book. I like how this guy thinks about God, I tend to think that way myself.
I’m wondering where is the line between the darker sides and the stupid sides that most of us live. I guess there are darknesses in my life. Mostly stupid, though.
I know I can only take so much Pollyanna.
but for me, the Udall book tried to hard to be clever, I had a hard time following it, or seeing the humor in a poor abused child. It just didn’t work for me. I never came out on the other side of it though. It actually took me years to get the courage to read The Color Purple, so we’ll see. Beloved sucked. IMHO
except the last line.
Comment # 23 by annegb | Jun 5, 2006 | Reply
I am loving this book more and more. I sort of digest a book, first I read the back and front cover, then I read the copyright info, then I read the dedication. Then the first pages, then the LAST pages, I almost always know how the book ends. Then I read the book.
I usually skip forewards and stuff, it annoys me, like the author is explaining the book to me and how I should take it. Sometimes I read them later.
This book says “Jesus is kind.” Even to flawed people like Frank. And me.
Comment # 24 by annegb | Jun 5, 2006 | Reply
The great “Mormon novel” will not, and cannot be written.
Here’s why: Mormonism, at least as practiced today, demands a high degree of orthodoxy. There is a certain party line members must walk (and talk and write) to remain in good standing in the church. Mormonism demands rigid adherence to its ideology.
Now consider the greatest artists: Shakespeare, Chaucer, Michelangelo, Mozart, etc. Their genius was not, generally, inspired by adherence to some ideology, but was rather inspired by a diverse group of ideologies and theologies.
To this day in Shakespearean scholarship, there are lively questions as to whether The Bard was a Protestant or Catholic. His thought, his creations were too grand to be contained in one orthodoxy.
One might ask how I’d account for a Bach,Handel or Milton. There is a significant difference between Mormon culture and their Catholic/Protestant cultures. They were products of the Reformation and Enlightenment, times where learning and exploration were genuinely encouraged. Contrary to the idea that the “glory of God is intelligence,” Mormonism doesn’t encourage such exploration or education. One need look no further than the Church’s efforts to suppress all history that is not “faith-promoting.”
Further, if the Book of Mormon truly is the most correct book on earth, and the hymns of the Restoration are a prayer to God, what’s the point in creating any art beyond those? Aren’t they already the pinnacle of Mormon artistry to which one could aspire?
Comment # 25 by Andrew | Jun 11, 2006 | Reply
Andrew:
Have you actually tried to read any serious Mormon literature?
I won’t claim that the great Mormon novel has been written yet — I’m not as qualified as I need to be to judge the quality of the literature. But I will dispute your claim that such a novel is impossible because Mormonism demands orthodoxy and rigid adherence to its ideology.
Regardless of whether or not Mormonism makes such demands, the serious literature we have already DOES NOT follow that rigidity. If nothing else, The Backslider is unorthodox and fails to rigidly adhere to Mormon ideology. And if it isn’t Mormon literature, what is it?
Try actually reading the literature before you dismiss it so handily.
Comment # 26 by Kent Larsen | Jun 21, 2006 | Reply
“Perhaps the Net will provide the space where MoLit will be truly successful. Sites like A Motley Vision, Segullah and Six Writers & a Frog are expanding the reach of LDS lit.”
Just a note that A Motley Vision has moved from the site originally given in this post. It can now be found at http://www.motleyvision.org
Please change the link!
Comment # 27 by Kent Larsen | Jun 21, 2006 | Reply
Re Roth:
There’s really such a larger contingent of more-secular-than-not Jews (whose main glue, if ya will, probably is “cultural” and the distinction of their NOT being a part of the greater, Xtian-background, secular culture than their being particularly “practicing” of their faith), than there is of more-secular-than-not Mormons(?) that the former’s producing great artists like Roth seems, I dunno, a more natural thing? In other words, the relative youth of Mormonism — and really its SUCCESS at keeping those who identify as Mormon within the orthodox fold — maybe reduced the chances for some kind of comparitively creative milieu to form, as that within the greater part of contemporary American Judaism? (If there be anything TO a more-secular-of-milieu’s encouraging art more, that is.) HOWEVAH — I wonder if the BLOGGERNACLE’S some manifestation of a more-secular-than-not impulse within Mormonism! So: hey! — ???
Comment # 28 by Kimball L. Hunt | Jun 21, 2006 | Reply
Thanks for the updated URL, Kent, the original link has been changed.
Comment # 29 by Admin | Jun 21, 2006 | Reply
In one very important sense, the premise of this whole discussion is wrong. It is NOT true that “there are few venues for Mormons to publish their literary efforts.” There are in fact thousands of such venues, for the simple reason that Mormon writers have the same access to commercial publishing companies as anyone else.
What is arguably in short supply are venues devoted exclusively to Mormon writing. But if there were more of them it might not be such a good thing. There’s a danger in Mormon fiction being ghettoized. There’s a danger that Mormon writers will not work as hard or dig as deeply as they might have to do when writing for a general, as opposed to Mormon-only, readership.
Consider the way so many Jewish fiction writers (Saul Bellow, Elie Wiesel) long ago ceased writing for Jewish venues and entered the mainstream. Don’t Mormon writers want to do the same thing? Don’t they want their Mormon sensibility to be the grounding of universal art? It’s true that Mormon-oriented publishing venues can play a role in nurturing writers, but isn’t the goal to move up and out of what can become an artistic ghetto?
Comment # 30 by David Mazel | Jun 23, 2006 | Reply
I think you’re absolutely right, David.
Comment # 31 by annegb | Jun 24, 2006 | Reply