Thursday, August 18, 2011

Flooding the Bloggernacle with Mormon Literature...?

Recently on A Motley Vision, Wm Morris suggested that Mormon literature advocates are potentially looking beyond the mark when they strive after “literary respectability.”  For him—and I hope I’m representing his point accurately—such a pursuit is misguided because any respectability Mormon literature could gain from, say, a national audience or a literary establishment would have to come at a price, namely a willingness to be co-opted by the establishment “for its own purposes,” whatever they may be. 

As I see it, this observation implies a few things.  First, it suggests that Mormon literature, to be wholeheartedly embraced by the literary powers-that-be, has to be willing to be used politically, much like other minority literatures are sometimes used politically by the establishment, to convey a certain openness or multiculturalism that may or may not actually exist in the establishment itself.  In other words, it implies that practitioners of Mormon literature must be willing to let the literary establishment pat its own back on their account.

The observation likewise suggests that Mormon literature must be willing to become what is accepted as respectable by the establishment, which also means that it must be willing to change whatever there is about it that is not acceptable. To gain respectability, that is, Mormon literature has to be be willing to justify itself to the literary world by becoming a kind of Mormon version of what already exists in the establishment—a Mormon Shakespeare or Milton or Roth or Morrison.[i]

With respectability, therefore, Mormon literature risks achieving a kind of Pyrrhic victory: on the one hand, it gains recognition and admiration; on the other, it becomes another literature colonized by the new canon—a compromised literature forced to masquerade as authentic.[ii]

Overall, I tend to agree with Morris on his assessment of the current price of respectability: to make Mormon literature respectable and accessible to the establishment (I don’t see how you could have one without the other) Mormon literature would have to make some changes.  Especially if you want it right away.

Look at the examples of The 19th Wife and The Lonely Polygamist.  Also take a look at Big Love, The Book of Mormon, and Angels in America.  Each of these works is about Mormonism, in one way or another, and has managed to achieve critical acclaim and respectability on a national scale—certainly more so than any novel ever published by a Mormon press, including Deseret Books. 

The message seems clear: if you want your Mormon stories to be taken seriously by the establishment, then they have to either depict non-traditional sexualities (at least in the mainstream Mormon community) or cast Mormonism, with its magical Kolobian underwear, as a big joke.[iii]


Don't get me wrong: I’m not saying that polygamy and homosexuality aren’t important issues in contemporary Mormonism. Nor am I saying that they are inappropriate for Mormon literature. [v]  What I am saying, though, is that they’re not the only issues occupying the Mormon mind. 

The fact is, no one is breaking down doors to read Douglas Thayer or Todd Robert Petersen or any other Mormon writer who chooses to write anything that comes close to suggesting that Mormons are something other than a herd of sexually-repressed/repressive/oversexed weirdos.[vi] 

Why is that?

Part of me hopes that it is a matter of accessibility.  National critics and audiences, including the literary establishment, are open to Mormon stories about polygamy and homosexuality because they are about national issues—issues about which they have strong opinions.  Works like The Lonely Polygamist and Angels in America, therefore, find a wider audience because they address issues that appeal to a wider audience, often in ways that affirm what many readers already feel on the issue. 

The same cannot be said, however, about a book like Summer Fire or The Backslider. Who but a Mormon could identify with Owen Williams or Frank Windham?  Who but a Mormon could get Jack Harrell’s “Calling and Election”?[vii]

Not many.

Possibly, one way to remedy the barrier between national audiences and more authentic Mormon literatures (i.e. gain literary respectability) would be through education.  Teach a national audience, or the literary establishment, about the issues that are important, say, to contemporary Mormon novelists, and the audience will be more likely to be interested in and understand the novelist’s work.  If minority literatures show us anything, they show us that we can connect with lives and cultures different from our own as long as they make us care enough to connect.

Of course, making an audience care is tricky.  In a guest post on Dawning of a Brighter Day, I once suggested that one way to make certain audiences—specifically, academic audiences—care about Mormon literature would be to develop a body of academic writing about Mormon texts.  My idea was that if you produce and publish a sizable body of Mormon literary criticism in reputable venues, then academic recognition and respectability would follow.  I still believe this is true, although I readily admit that it will take years and years to bring about.

I wonder if the same principle applies to other audiences as well.  If enough of a buzz is made nationally over Mormon literature, would it be sufficient to make people care enough to read a Mormon text on its own terms?  Probably, but you still need to find venues willing to cooperate with the buzz efforts.  It would be great, for instance, if Oprah selected Bound on Earth or Long After Dark for her popular (and respected) book club, but I don’t see that happening any time soon.[viii]  In fact, for the moment, I think a spot on the Oprah Book Club is setting ambitions too high.  It’s definitely looking beyond the mark. 

As I see it, for Mormon literature to gain wider literary respectability without being colonized by the establishment,[ix] it’s going to need to take it’s time and win its audience over.  In fact, before it can take American audiences by storm, it will first need to find a solid Mormon audience.  Then, after it has established itself within the Mormon community, and demonstrated its ability to make a dollar, it will have enough uncompromising advocates to carry it safely to the next level, even the Kolobian realms of Oprah.[x]

Of course, getting Mormons to read Mormon literature is a difficult endeavor, and everyone seems to have an opinion on why it hasn’t happened yet.  Personally, I don’t think it’s a matter of offensive content or finding Mormons who actually read.[xi]  Rather, I think it’s again a matter of education: Mormon readers don’t know what’s out there that’s worth reading.  

I wonder, then, if the next step toward respectability is to work toward popularizing Mormon literature among the Mormon masses. No, I don’t mean allowing Mormon literature to be colonized by popular Mormon tastes,[xii] but rather taking the message of Mormon literature to  Bloggernacle sites other than, say, A Motley Vision or Dawning of a Brighter Day, where readers have already gotten the message.

This strategy, of course, has been proposed before.  Last year, Jonathan Langford posted on A Motely Vision about his attempt to start a conversation about Mormon Literature on an Amazon.com messagae board.  I think he’s got the right idea, although I wonder if Amazon is the right place for it.

Currently, the Bloggernacle has many popular, well-travelled blogs that address Mormonism culturally rather than doctrinally or institutionally.  I wonder if flooding these sites with energetic guest posts about Mormon literature might be the way the get the word out among the Mormons.[xiii]

In his essay “The Burden of Skepticism,” scientist Carl Sagan chides his fellow scientists for their apparent unwillingness to popularize science for the masses, leaving the door open for pseudo-science to take its place. He reasons that if scientists were able to explain science to “the average person” through “accessible and exciting” means, then the masses would become more interested in real science, and imaginative substitutes, like astrology, would begin to lose its audience.

Could this be true also with Mormon literature? If Mormon literature advocates blasted the Bloggernacle with “accessible and exciting” posts about Mormon literature, would Mormon readers begin to seek out Bound on Earth before The Help?  Would that be enough to get Mormon literature on the road to respectability without compromise?

Or do we need to wait for a Mormon Oprah to do the job for us?


[i] I think Morris makes an important, potentially revolutionary point here.  Thanks to Orson F. Whitney, who said that Mormons will someday have Shakespeares and Miltons of their own, Mormon writers have looked to the day when a Mormon Milton or Shakespeare would arrive on the scene, messiah-like, and grant respectability to Mormon literature.  In his post, however, Morris seems to be suggesting that we're placing too much hope in this “prophesy”—and possibly even allowing it to lead us and Mormon literature astray.  I hope he’s right in this respect, since a gentile Milton is bad enough.

[ii] I recognize, by the way, that terms like “Mormon literature” and “literary establishment” are problematic because they are vague and unspecific.  What makes a work of literature authentically Mormon? Who makes up the literary establishment?  These are questions for other posts. For the sake of this post, though, think of the literary establishment as those who put together or are included in, say, the Norton or Longman literature anthologies that are used by universities across the country.  

[iii] If anything irritates me more, it’s the phrase “magical underwear,” which seems to be a media darling.

[iv] And your example can’t include a story about a grisly, religiously-motivated murder, either.  Sorry Krakauer fans.  

[v] In fact, I’d be willing to say that a Mormon literature that is not willing to address these issues is not much of a Mormon literature at all.

[vi] Of course, the more I read of nineteenth century depictions of Mormon, the more I realize that this has always been the stereotype.  The Book of Mormon musical brings nothing new to the table aside from a few catchy songs. 

[vii] I’m a Mormon, and I’m not sure I entirely get it.

[viii] While Oprah has endorsed a book about Mormons before, it is not a book many Mormons will likely appreciate.

[ix] A case of having cake and eating it too.

[x] Personally, I hope we set our sights higher than Oprah—although, I admit, Oprah would be big.   

[xi] There is an erroneous belief, perpetuated by frustrated Mormon readers, that Mormons don’t read.

[xii] That didn’t work out too well for Mormon cinema.

[xiii] I tried to do this recently, with moderate success, on the blog Modern Mormon Men with a guest post entitled “The Five Mormon Books Every Modern Mormon Man Should Read.”

9 comments:

  1. Excellent analysis, Scott. I don't have time to respond in detail right now, but some quick reactions

    a) I think your point about "willing to be used politically" is spot on

    b) I like what you say about generating buzz -- I'm just not sure how to do it (although I do have some ideas)

    c) I definitely think we could do more to flood the bloggernacle, but there have been efforts and I believe the results have been fair to middling. But I have more thoughts about this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When you get the time, I'd like to hear your ideas and thoughts.

    In fact, I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think Mormon literature will have to crack the outsider nut before Mormons ever really pay attention to it. I'm hoping some deeply authentic Mormon story will catch on nationally, and that will force Mormons to pay attention to it. The bone-headed culture simply will not allow any really significant Mormon realism to bubble up from within. Mormonism is too repressed and conformist and worried about appearances to allow that to happen in any big way.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Chris,
    Considering that you are resposible for nearly everything significant that's been published in Mormon literature in the past decade, it's hard to argue with you.

    At the same time, when I talk to Mormons about what they read, I'm always surprised by the sizeable number of non-Mormon realistic novels they read. When you look around at a lot of the book blogs written by Mormons, you get the impression that all Mormons read are books written for people under the age of 16. But I'm not convinced that's really the case, although I wouldn't be surprised if the preoccupation with image contributes to an uneasiness among Mormons to admit that they actually read contemporary realistic novels. I don't know. I know that a lot of the people I talk to about Mormon literature seem interested in it, but unwilling to pay a whole lot on a book they may or may not like. (I'm hoping affordable ebooks will do away with this excuse.) A lot of them wish our libraries in Ohio carried them. (To your list of Mormon cultural faults, you could probably add "thrifty" or "cheap."

    In my post, I joked about a Mormon Oprah--but in some ways the joke was in earnest. Mormon lit would be benefited significantly by the endorsement of highly respected, conservative member--someone who would let hesitant readers know that it's okay to read it. Unfortunately, I'm not sure who that would be.

    I also wonder if Mormon lit would do better if it were brought to the areas old-school Mormons liked to call the "Mission Field"--i.e. everywhere outside of Utah--marketed where the number of converts is higher, so cultural backgrounds are more diverse, and where the preoccupations with image might be less intense. Again, though, I don't know. You've had a lot more experience with the Mormon publishing industry than I have.I imagine one of the problems there is how to market it in the first place. What venues are open to hosting that sort of marketing? It's a tricky and risky venture, and Mormon aren't known for taking risks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I could go on for a great deal of time about the question of how to publicize Mormon literature. Scott, you're spot-on that the Mormon-authored book blogs don't, as a whole, show much interest in realistic Mormon fiction. I did succeed in getting some of them to look at No Going Back, and the responses were mostly guardedly positive, but it was clear that it was a step outside their normal comfort zone.

    I could see the kind of acceptance you're describing happening either the way you describe (solid Mormon audience first, followed by interest and acceptance in the mainstream) or the way Chris describes (basically the opposite). I'm most inclined, however, to think that anything dramatic would have to happen Chris's way. An Oprah could easily popularize a Mormon book. Ironically, I can't think of any Mormon with similar cultural clout who isn't also limited by his/her role (you aren't going to get the Prophet endorsing The Tree House, let alone No Going Back). Even Mormon cultural icons like Glenn Beck actually has more influence within the broad culture than specifically within Mormonism, in my view. Popularity among Mormons would be a side-effect, at best.

    Your comment about a trusted conservative Mormon to endorse good literature for others reminds me of Richard Cracroft's book columns in BYU Magazine. In this case, the lack of a widespread reputation for Cracroft (outside of those of us in Mormon literature) was potentially balanced by publication of his column in BYU Magazine. And yet Chris Bigelow assures me that mention in Cracroft's column didn't translate to much in the way of sales. And now, of course, with Richard's retirement from his review columnn for health reasons, what I've heard is that the book review column will be discontinued.

    The big problem is that there's neither a mechanism for talking to Mormons about serious Mormon literature, nor a disposition among those Mormons who might enjoy such fiction to go looking for it. Based on my own experience in pushing my book (and other works of Mormon literature I've enjoyed) on Mormons of my acquaintance, I think there is a healthy percentage of Mormon readers who would read with appreciation serious books on Mormon themes and experience. However, for the most part, these aren't the people who are looking at Mormon literature at all. It's hard both to reach them and to catch their attention.

    The best hope is through word-of-mouth. Maybe that could happen through creative co-opting of other serious Mormon blogs, but if so, I think it will have to be through efforts like your post on the Modern Mormon Men blog and Angela Hallstrom's corresponding posts on Segullah. Unfortunately, I suspect that readers of such blogs also represent a fairly restricted community...

    It occurs to me that in order to look at the other kinds of possibilities that are available, it might be worthwhile to look at something like Dave Farland's experience with In the Company of Angels. He's an author with a fairly prominent national reputation who nonetheless chose to self-publish. He got his book carried in Deseret Bookstores and reviewed in places like Mormon Times that wouldn't touch No Going Back. And he's dealing with a topic that is inherently gripping for Mormons, at least. What kind of success has he experienced? Has his national reputation created any crossover for readers of this (admittedly very different) book? Hm, maybe that's an interview we could do over at A Motley Vision...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jonathan,

    I think you bring up a lot of important points to the table. One thing I keep thinking is that any effort to share the message of Mormon literature isn't going to convert everyone. Some people just won't go for it. Efforts need to be focused on those people who are already readers, even if they represent "a fairly restricted community," as you put it. One thing I noticed in the comments on my MMM guest post was the two or three people who noted that they had never heard of any of the books on my list. I guess that's the sort of people we're looking for.

    I also think the observation you make about Farland's handcart book is interesting. I imagine that historical fiction about pioneers is an easier sell than a novel about a gay Mormon teenager, and I think the temptation would be to write sightly edgier books that address topics that are known to sell books. But there's little growth in that sort of approach. It goes back to that idea of Mormon literature getting respectability on its own terms. I have no issues with well-written, realistic pioneer novels; however, if readership and respectability come at the exclusion of works like "No Going Back" or "Long After Dark," then there's really no point in believing it has a future. Now if Farland's book could somehow act as a kind of gateway drug to fiction about contemporary Mormonism, then that's a different story...

    And now that I've brought up novels as gateway drugs, that might be another approach--push the novels that that more or less "safe" content-wise, yet still take on the big, challenging issues in realistic ways. I'm thinking of novels like "Bound on Earth," "Rift," or "The Tree House." Get readers to read "Rift" and they might move on to "Long After Dark." (And, if not, at least they're reading "Rift.")"Bound on Earth" readers also might pick up "The Coming of Elijah." "The Tree House" might lead readers to "The Conversion of Jeff Williams" or "No Going Back." You get the idea.

    The problem of getting the word out still remains. When I started focusing on Mormon lit in this blog, I wanted to write it in a way that could appeal to anyone, not just literary folk. I don't know how well that is working out, since it is mostly literary folk who comment (and I'm not complaining--keep the comments coming).

    I think it would be great, though, if some of my non-literary folk readers (I know you're out there) would chime in and talk about why they do or do not read Mormon literature. Maybe potential readers have some insight that could help us find a good strategy to reach a wider audience.

    ReplyDelete
  7. .

    I got an idea, Scott. Let's get you an apostleship and you can quote Todd and Angela in general conference.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Then I could also petition to have the FOB Bible accepted as a Standard Work, right?

    ReplyDelete