Our Literary Genealogy
I used to think I knew my stuff when it came to Mormon literature. I’d read the Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites books as a kid, came across Charly as a teen, and had heard of The Work and the Glory. That was all there was, wasn’t it?
It’s almost a little embarrassing to admit that my cramped perspective lasted until not too long ago. That narrow vision began expanding when I heard about books like Maurine Whipple’s The Giant Joshua, Nephi Anderson’s Added Upon, and Virginia Sorensen’s A Little Lower Than the Angels. Browsing through the LDS fiction shelves at both BYU Bookstore and the Harold B. Lee Library confirmed the staggering reality that not only was there a body of Mormon literature out there that I’d never even heard of, but it was even somewhat substantial. Novels, short stories, poetry, plays — a whole microcosm of literature from a Mormon perspective, and I’d had no idea it existed. None.
It’s like digging around in the attic, unearthing a family history, and learning about ancestors I didn’t know I had. This is my heritage. And now that I’m becoming more and more aware of how many branches there are on this literary family tree, I feel my heart turning towards the fathers — a yearning to read the novels and plays and poems of my spiritual forebears.
But, as in doing genealogy, desire isn’t enough. I still haven’t read Whipple or Anderson or Sorensen. Or most of the Mormon fiction out there, for that matter. Being a Mormon who loves books, I should find it easy to muster up the desire to read these Mormon classics…shouldn’t I?
It seems to be a lot like reading the classics in general. I want to, but it’s ten times harder to pick up a classic than it is to pick up something published a couple years ago. Sure, the classics are good for me, but they take more effort. And so the natural man in me swerves away and skates down the path of least resistance — and I end up reading “easier” books.
But it’s not just that. I seem to have a subconscious conviction that Mormon literature just isn’t as good as the rest of the world’s literature. That with only so many decades of life on earth and so many books to read, my time is better spent elsewhere. And I don’t think I’m the only one who feels that way.
Now, while we certainly have room for improvement, I think this inferiority complex has got to go. It’s keeping us in shackles, both as readers and as writers. How are we going to produce our own Miltons and Shakespeares if we keep thinking we’re not as good as everyone else?
Not everyone feels that way, certainly, but most Mormon literature is the underside of an iceberg, and most Mormon readers seem to gravitate toward the literature of the world at large. It should be the other way round.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
[…] from Mormon Renaissance. We’re trying to get the discussion going over there, so if you do comment, it’d be […]
February 28th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Ben, I’ve been thinking about this recently. And I mean, very recently. I just got back from my Mormons and Film class where I got to see an appallingly dreadful film called “Brigham.” While watching the film I kept wondering to myself if it really is worth wading through all of the chaff, so to speak, in an effort to get to know Mormonism’s cinematic history. I thought similar things in my LDS literature class when I was always excited about the readings. But, going along with the analogy of family history, I think it is worth exploring every little branch of the family tree if we really want to know where we came from and better understand where we are. Perhaps once I see all of the films that have been made about Brigham Young, I’ll be in a better position to envision what a really good version will look like.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I don’t mean to be hard headed about this… but I really am not quite sure what you are encouraging us to read. Possibly my problem is that I haven’t read Sorensen, Whipple, or Anderson either, so I don’t know your frames of reference (I will look into them).
But when you say “Mormon Literature” are you talking simply about published writers who are Mormon? Or are you talking about publish writers who are Mormon AND who write about Mormon characters, themes, or histories? To me there seems to be a difference, and I am not quite sure what you are getting at. And for some reason it matters to me. I want to know.
I am not against fiction about LDS characters or topics, but I often get frustrated reading them (I find I often don’t like many recreations of LDS historical events and characters as fiction-not because I think they are poorly written, but because I feel like I am left with a fictional character instead of a Living Prophet (a personal issue, I know)). I love seeing others read them, however, and am thrilled that even some of my non-member relatives have begun reading and enjoying The Work and the Glory. I hope good things come from it.
I do, however, read a considerable amount of LDS non-fiction works, and many fiction works by LDS authors that are not necessarily or specifically about LDS characters. Does that fall under what you are talking about too? What exactly are you encouraging? Or is it all of the above?
February 29th, 2008 at 7:52 am
What Ben is talking about is the classics of Mormon literature from other generations. We as readers tend to only know the stuff that has come out during our time. The three novels he has mentioned (Added Upon, Giant Joshua, A Little Lower than the Angels) are landmark texts in Mormon lit, yet no one seems to have heard of or read them (unless you took an LDS lit class at BYU, which not many do). They are surprisingly well written, and the last two are historical fiction, so if you are sick of the current texts, you should try to find one of them.
One problem is that these texts are frequently out of print and rather hard to get a hold of. But perhaps that’s again a symptom of the problem: people aren’t interested in reading them, so they don’t get published.
I’ve been doing some research on the process of creating a literary cannon in Jewish literature, and this is one of the main problems: what do we decide to include? A lot of the articles conclude that we pick texts that influence the culture, that spontaneously stay popular and are referenced. But by this standard, I think the only texts in the Mormon literary cannon would be the scriptures and Jesus the Christ. All of the classics that we literary folks study don’t seem to have had a hold in the culture.
What other texts are spontaneously popular enough to be considered influential in LDS lit? What do we read that isn’t disposable?
February 29th, 2008 at 7:54 am
And Saturday’s Warrior. I neglected to mention that. And if that’s our literary cannon, I’m scared.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:23 am
“Added Upon” by Nephi Anderson IS a classic. I have my grandmother’s old copy, which she gave to my mother, which my mother gave to me. It’s an astounding work and an excellent glimpse in to the mind of early saints and their understanding of the Premortal World, Mortal World, and Paradise. I was actually surprised how our views have changed and how much more Anderson at least allowed his imagination to explore the possibilities.
I also have to disagree with Katherine’s comments about the movie called “Brigham” if it’s the one I’m thinking of. Tyrone Power should have been in that one, and he was a real heart-throb of the day. He was actually one of the first men to play Zorro, which Antonio Bandares has made famous to our generation. Ahem. Anyway, there had been many movies made by Hollywood about Mormons, each of which the Church came out against in a most public way. “Brigham” was the first such movie which the Church did NOT decry and there was actually some good press run by Utah papers of the time (primarily LDS editors). It is a great black and white classic and was very well made for that film-era. :-) I highly recommend it.
LDS classic literature can be very entertaining and I think it’s a vital part of our history as a Church.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Mormon Literature, in the simplest terms, (not just what Ben goes on to talk about) is literature written by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Broadening this definition, we can include written about members of the church, and still broadening even further we can add holding significant Mormon elements or themes. However, for the most part to be ML is simply to say it was literature written by a member of the church and doesn’t necessarily have to have Mormon characters, themes, or elements.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Katherine: It’s the appallingly dreadful works that often infuse you with the motivation to do better, so yes, I think there’s value there. :) I don’t know that we have to read everything (or see everything, or listen to everything), though. There’s chaff that really isn’t worth anyone’s time. My point isn’t so much that we need to consume everything, just that we need to get a good sampling, without limiting ourselves to the tip of the iceberg.
Carly: Liz and Candy are right. Mormon literature in general is as Candy defined it. In this post, I’m primarily talking about those classics of older generations, which primarily seem to be Mormon authors writing on Mormon themes. (It doesn’t have to be that way, but we consider something like The Work and the Glory to belong to us as a people, whereas Ender’s Game doesn’t quite feel the same way. It’s equally valid as Mormon lit, yes, but I don’t know if it’s part of our heritage in the same way.)
Liz: There’s been some discussion on the out-of-print works (and what we can do about it) on A Motley Vision. If only they were out of copyright… As for the canon, it’s hard, particularly because so much of what’s popular nowadays is also rather transient. Not much of it sticks.
Sally: I think that — glimpses into the minds of the early Saints — is one of the compelling reasons we should read these classics. It’s a new perspective, a valuable one, and like you say it’s a vital part of our history. It matters.
Candy: A good definition. :)
February 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Sally, the film Katherine wrote about and the one you are thinking about are different films. The one we watched last night was, indeed, dreadful; it was an independent film made in the early 80’s. The one you’re thinking of was made decades before.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Sally, you’re right about the Tyrone Power “Brigham Young.” I actually rather like that version. Sorry–I should have clarified that the film I was talking about, as Candy mentioned, was something quite different. “Brigham” is an independent film that follows pretty much the same story as “Brigham Young,” only it begins a little further in the past and ends a little further in the future. One of the ways it deviates from Hollywood’s depiction of Brigham Young and from the Church’s depiction of Brigham Young is that it takes on some rather sticky issues head-on. It’s the only film about Brigham Young I’ve seen so far that has given more than a passing mention of polygamy. In “Brigham,” we get to see all of his wives and at least in three scenes see him interact with them. It’s not done very well, I have to say, but it is done, which is significant. It’s interesting to see what happens when an independent filmmaker who isn’t answerable to any institution takes on the story of Brigham Young.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Thank you for your helpful definitions. I will admit, my LDS literary endeavors have been few and far between. I simply hadn’t given it much thought. I do find it interesting, however, that I really do have full confidence in the writing abilities and potentials of those around me and yet do not gravitate toward LDS works. I will do better :).
February 29th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Ben: The transience of current popular works is exactly my point. I think one of the problems with Mormon lit is that it is too new; we haven’t yet enough perspective to have seen what works. Considering the literature didn’t really pick up until the late 19th century, we haven’t had much more than 100 years. I think it’s hard for us to say what works are critical with such a short sighted perspective.
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 am
[…] 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 specific piece (albeit […]
March 19th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Two thoughts:
1) Maybe the best way to read Mormon Literary classics now is to be forced to do so, i.e. take that lit class! Does Gideon let people sneak in an sit in the back? Otherwise, you could hide on the roof like Hillel did to start his education.
2) I think an interest in LDS classics will come when new LDS things are consistently capturing the LDS popular imagination. People don’t find added up b/c it just doesn’t seem like a century-old “Saturday’s Warrior” is going to be good. When people have a more engaged present to project onto the past :) I think things will get better.
As far as this is concerned, I think a narrower definition of Mormon Letters applies. Anne Perry is awesome and wonderful, but reading her mysteries is not going to inspire someone to search for Mormon literary roots in the way that a wave of really good Mormon-themed content could.