On a Unified Mormon Fiction
On Saturday at BYU’s science fiction/fantasy symposium, Life, The Universe, and Everything, Orson Scott Card gave a lecture entitled “SF&F as a Legitimate Literary Genre.” Now, I’m going to ignore the primary question of his speech, since science fiction is not what this blog is all about. However, I think some of the points he raised can be legitimately applied to Mormon literature. Because, in its own way, Mormon fiction is like SF&F: a class of writing read by a small, cult-like following, a genre which many (self-proclaimed literary) people look down on because of its “juvenile” conventions.
Card’s point was this–the dismissal of an entire genre is usually illegitimate. When we do so (usually by using only one example, or only its worst examples), we’re really just setting up strawmen to knock down to our own literary preferences. To read science fiction with an eye for literary fiction is an experiment doomed to fail. The genres have different definitions of success. For example, Card claimed that in literary fiction, the star is the author, who as he/she writes, encodes meaning into complex layers of symbols which the reader is then to decode. This is what people who read literary fiction want, and when it is done well, they are happy. However, these conventions would be found ridiculous to science fiction readers, who are completely concerned with plot. Science fiction is about the believable linkage of cause and effect, an exploration of how we effect the world. That exploration is best done through stories rather than symbols.
I see this applying to Mormon literature in two ways. First, as I said in our opening post, it’s unfair to judge Mormon lit by all that is really crappy in it. In Jeff Savage’s recent post on LDS Publisher, he pointed out that we ought to look first to find literature that suits our own tastes and then within that genre to find the best books that fit that need. Within Mormon literature, there is room for sappy romances, homey mysteries, epic historicals, as well as literary fiction, as long as we don’t expect them to be what they are not. Any impulse to declare any one of these as the Mormon fiction, to the exclusion of the others, would be invalid. However, within each of these genres, there are good quality works and lesser quality works, and we can work on improving each genre to its own ideal to achieve its own ends.
Second, Card’s discussion of the different aesthetic approaches of each genre reminded me of what the people in the Fit for the Kingdom films movement are trying to do. This film-making group has divorced itself from the idea that Mormon cinema ought to employ the popular Hollywood conventions, instead trying to define a style of honesty and celebration of the ordinary that is uniquely Mormon. I’d like to see a similar thing happen in Mormon literature. As I said, Mormon literature covers many genres. What makes people (like me) want to unite them is that they all deal with Mormon subject matter. But in style, in approach, they seem pretty disparate: Mormon literary fiction follows literary fiction conventions, Mormon romance novels follow romance novel conventions (obviously with some amendments). This is good–romance novels would not work if the character suddenly broke out into random bouts of symbolism as they tend to in literary fiction.
However, it seems to me that the unity of Mormon literature could benefit from the definition of some uniquely Mormon style, independent of the worldly genres. I’m not sure there’s a genre that could be called the “Mormon” genre, but perhaps there could be a specific aesthetic or style of Mormon writing. My personal vision would be an aesthetic of individual consideration and empowerment–a Christian writing where there are no “bad” or “good” guys, but simply sympathetic people trying their misguided best to do what they think will bring them happiness. This belief in the power of humanity and its ultimate humanness is one of the most unique beliefs in Mormondom, and I think it could make for a great literature. From the buzz I’m hearing about Angela Hallstrom’s Bound on Earth, this novel seems promising in that direction.
But that’s my vision: What’s your Mormon literary aesthetic? Am I wrong about Mormon literature not being about genres? Is there one genre that sticks out to you as Mormon?
February 27th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Great post. I’m all for dialogue that bridges the unfortunate gap between the two camps.
My take: Mormon lit can and should include several subgenres, literary fiction being one of them (as a memoirist, I promote creative nonfiction as another.) The unifying characteristic should be overt or subtle evidence that author has Mormon-style faith in Christ and the power of the atonement. Since Mormons have many different flavors of faith, some of them flawed imo, we can’t expect all Mormon lit to reflect our own perspective. But I think it would be fantastic to have a roundtable forum where LDS authors and readers from various subgenres could discuss how this core characteristic is manifested, or not, in Mormon lit. Perhaps Mormon Renaissance could host such a discussion.
February 27th, 2008 at 7:27 am
p.s. Hallstrom’s novel is indeed a breakthrough work in this respect.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
“This is good–romance novels would not work if the character suddenly broke out into random bouts of symbolism as they tend to in literary fiction.”
Why not?
If Mormon authors are stuck re-creating the market for and progress of the national market (and in the case of genre fiction — the Christian genre market), then they are always going to be behind.
I completely agree with what you are saying, Liz. And I especially like what you say in an earlier posts about celebrating and situating the small triumphs (it’s something I’ve been saying and trying to do for several years now).
But I also think that the compatabilities and contradictions (or paradoxes, to borrow from Terryl Givens) — this thing that makes some of us even want to try and bridge the unfortunate gap — should also drive us to attempts at something truly avant garde. Some strange hybrids that maybe alienate everyone or maybe touch everyone, but that draw upon the experience of being a Mormon and an American (or whatever national tradition one belongs to) and an artist. I think some of our visual artists have done this. Narrative arts — maybe not so much.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
First, you have no idea how jealous I am that you got to go see Orson Scott Card:P
Second, as far as LDS fiction is concerned, I’d just like to see it gain enough credibility with book sellers to be sold across the US. So far, the only two fiction authors I’m aware of who have managed to do that are Orson Scott Card and Stephenie Meyer.
I think part of that may be because LDS fiction may appear, to an outsider, to be a really specific genre of fiction unto itself. To break it down even more into Romance, Sci-fi, and fantasy seems a bit too divided. Perhaps as Mormon fiction increases in prevalence and literary merit, being so specific will be necessary. But as of right now, it probably hasn’t occurred to a lot of people that Mormon fiction even exists.
Until then, us east coast Mormons will continue doing happy dances when we find the Women of Genesis series on the “LDS” shelf, even though it’s (sadly) sandwiched between the anti-Mormon memoirs that make up the rest of the shelf. Not to mention that said shelf is positioned between the Catholic doctrine books and the books on Pagan traditions and practices.
How ’bout THOSE implications, hm? LOL.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Interesting comments, Liz. I too wonder whether a unique Mormon aesthetic is emerging or if literature written by Mormons merely follows the genres those works are written in. In my Mormons and Film class, one of the things we’ve been discussing is that Mormonism takes in a rather large scope as its vision: premortal life, earth life, and the afterlife. This is reflected in many of the films the Church has produced, such as “Man’s Search for Happiness.” It does seem that much of the genre fiction takes in this vision as well. In Mormon romance novels, it’s not just about a guy and a girl getting together–they’re getting together for eternity. The decisions they make now will affect generations to come as well as their own eternal progression. Science fiction as a genre already takes in a similar scope, and perhaps that is what lends itself to an integration with Mormon themes. “Leven Thumps and the Gateway to Foo,” a fantasy children’s book written by a Mormon author, has the interesting element of a premortal life. I wish I were more familiar with Mormon literature to think of examples, but maybe other readers here can?
February 27th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Unfortunately, the only Mormon lit I’ve read are young adult fiction. There was a time (11-13 years old) when I read a lot of it. Jack Weyland has his place, but I can only think of it as guilty pleasure reading. I have a feeling that’s how I’d feel about any of the historical fictions out there as well.
Anyway, I agree that there needs to be a new aesthetic that I don’t feel ashamed of reading. My favorite literature (and media in general) isn’t didactic and mushy, but honest and sincere. I feel like conventions interrupt sincerity in a lot of ways, disrupting any thoughts or actions contrary to what is “supposed” to happen. I love your idea of focusing on “humanness” more than convention. I think that ties into what I think is engaging and moving literature.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:49 am
So, not to throw a wrench in anyone’s whirring gears, but I just thought I’d add my lil’ bit…
I’m not sure there’s a genre that could be called the “Mormon” genre, but perhaps there could be a specific aesthetic or style of Mormon writing. My personal vision would be an aesthetic of individual consideration and empowerment–a Christian writing where there are no “bad” or “good” guys, but simply sympathetic people trying their misguided best to do what they think will bring them happiness. This belief in the power of humanity and its ultimate humanness is one of the most unique beliefs in Mormondom, and I think it could make for a great literature
I like these ideas, but wonder if it’s not a bit pretentious to take such complex treatments of humanity with their sympathetic characters and label that as a “Mormon” genre. To me, this move seems reductive, and self-defeatist when you are referencing common humanity and then eclipsing it by trying to place a restrictive label upon it, in essence (at least how I’m reading it, I may be wrong) saying that we have a monopoly on such belief. Why can’t Mormons lead the way (I guess Angela Hallstrom is doing this?) to incorporate everyone into a larger, “grand narrative” genre? The fiction I write tends to be about ambiguities and human complexities (usually failings), and I’ll point out here that even I’m making sweeping generalizations by claiming this work hasn’t ever been done previously. Authors as far back as Lord Byron had complex, complicated characters in very human situations which played out sympathetically even if they weren’t always “right.”
So I guess to sum up all that spouting, I’ll say I don’t really see the ability to form a “Mormon” genre without having it subverted into larger, grander narrative genres already in place.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I’m not sure there’s a genre that could be called the “Mormon” genre, but perhaps there could be a specific aesthetic or style of Mormon writing. My personal vision would be an aesthetic of individual consideration and empowerment–a Christian writing where there are no “bad” or “good” guys, but simply sympathetic people trying their misguided best to do what they think will bring them happiness. This belief in the power of humanity and its ultimate humanness is one of the most unique beliefs in Mormondom, and I think it could make for a great literature.
Part of the problem you have is that Mormonism is really flexible ideologically. Your personal vision here, and your idea of what makes Mormonism unique, is pretty different from mine. I sometimes think that Mormonism wasn’t meant to be an independent system of thought but rather a technology or a set of emphases that could be married to other systems of thought. Which creates problems for your unification project.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Adam writes:
“I sometimes think that Mormonism wasn’t meant to be an independent system of thought but rather a technology or a set of emphases that could be married to other systems of thought. Which creates problems for your unification project.”
But which also creates the possibility of some rather powerful personal projects. Matthew Barney’s work is an example from the realm of elitist, East-coast art.
I’d also note that this technology may be why there are so many Mormons who write very good speculative fiction. It’s not just that Mormons are open to the idea of science fiction because of their beliefs or because speculative fiction allows them to explore religion and belief in a way that literary fiction doesn’t — it’s also that they are accustomed to marrying system of thought, to creating the world.
The example that comes most readily to mind is how Orson Scott Card, Brandon Sandersen and David Farland all have shown a knack for creating rigorous, interesting, limited, specific magic systems.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Good point, William, about science fiction. I recently wrote a paper on Mormons and science fiction–maybe more of that will show up in a future post. It does seem to be the area that Mormons are best at converting to their own means. Or at least the one in which they have been most successful.
Adam: You have an excellent point. That is one of the problems with Mormonism–way too flexible. I guess that’s why I was trying to steer away from theology in my suggestion for a Mormon aesthetic: because we don’t really have much of our own theology, or at least not a very complex system of them. There’s lots of room for individual belief within our supposedly dogmatic system, which does make it hard to define what it means to be Mormon. I think the community-esque perspective I’ve suggested is one way to deal with that, but I have some other ideas, which will show up in a post sometime next week. :D
February 29th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
[…] light of the recent conversation on united Mormon fiction and literary genealogy, I thought I’d try and rein the conversation in a bit by focusing on a […]
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:16 am
an aesthetic of individual consideration and empowerment–a Christian writing where there are no “bad” or “good” guys, but simply sympathetic people trying their misguided best to do what they think will bring them happiness. This belief in the power of humanity and its ultimate humanness is one of the most unique beliefs in Mormondom, and I think it could make for a great literature.
Interesting that you would call that a unique belief of Mormondom. Aside from the word “Christian” in the above, I would call that “Humanism.” This is basically the aesthetic I strive for in my work, so maybe I’m not so far from the mainstream of Mormon Lit.
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Great comments everyone.
With so much discussion about Mormonism and Science fiction, I have to suggest the take that I have on Sci-fi as a genre since I first saw Tarkovsky’s Stalker. It is very much a Sci-fi film taken from Stanislaw Lem’s Sci-fi novel, but it breaks almost all of the guidelines Orson Scott Card set out (as quoted in this post). It also seems to me to be the definitive statement on post-war Christianity, and a highly spiritual film.
Also much of this discussion on genre will factor into a post I’ve been planning on my Blog sometime next week about genre after a Belgium film series called The Trilogy. I thank you all for your input.
March 4th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
[…] my last post, I discussed the idea of Mormon literature as an aesthetic–an idea of how writing should be, […]
March 7th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
[…] been thinking alot about the discussion sparked last week with the attempts at defining a Mormon “genre” as well as my musings on expectation as a reader. I want to now address how this affects what I do […]
March 19th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I don’t think we necessarily want or need an overarching Mormon aesthetic, but I do know that we’ve made some initial attempts to form a distinct company aesthetic for theatre, especially for our religious plays.
I think each form/genre could have its own Mormon aesthetic, and as Katherine suggested, these are probably alread developing. In the spirit of Mormon Renaissance, it might be most hopeful to start the conversation not with, “What should we create?” but rather with “What is already here? And where could it go next?”