So why do you think it is that discussions of Mormon letters are basically stuck in this redundancy?

A few reasons, none of which are original with me:

– There isn’t enough cultural resonance and interest in LDS life, practice, and doctrine (vs., say, Jewish life, practice, and doctrine) to generate general public interest in literature feature LDS characters. This is a problem for many other denominations as well; we don’t talk or read much about “Jehovah Witness letters” or even “Baptist letters”. Literature about Evangelical Christianity in general tends to bifurcate between Elmer Gantry and Left Behind.

– Much like LDS films (and, for that matter, Evangelical films and books), LDS fiction tends to be written for the faithful and — as per my comment above — compelled to provide either a happy ending or a sad one based on what gospel roads the characters chose.

– A related challenge for LDS authors is that we don’t believe in real tragedy, that is, in someone not getting what they deserve. Compared to most of traditional Christianity, we are near-Universalists; even Hitler ends up in a kingdom of glory as a servant of God, whereas traditional Christianty condemns the vast majority of humanity to an eternal hell. And, of course, we lack the existential angst and general uncertainty of atheism/agnosticism.

– Most of us just aren’t very good writers (Sturgeon’s Law — “90% of everything is crap” — applies just as readily, and perhaps more so, to literature from LDS authors), and those who are really good writers writing really good LDS-themed fiction (Dean Hughes, Douglas Thayer, Levi Petersen, etc.) don’t get read much either by Mormons or by non-Mormons. Orson Scott Card, Anne Perry and Stephenie Meyer are the really big breakouts into the general public market; the irony is that Card is vastly the best writer of the three (IMHO) but hasn’t had nearly the breakout success of Meyer, whereas Perry is pretty much right in the middle on both counts. Frankly, given a lot of the drek on the NYTimes and other bestseller lists, Card deserves far more appearances there than he has had to date.

In short, we keep rehashing these same issues over and over again, instead of just writing. And writing, particularly writing fiction, is hard work. I’ve published over 150 articles and four books, all non-fiction, as well as several product manuals. I have yet to finish any of my novels, and I worry that when I do, they just won’t be any good. ..bruce..

I think the present state of Internet discussion compounds this issue since so much of what is being said is said in isolation from other relevant discussions. And the AML doesn’t seem interested (at least from my perspective, which may be way off) in bringing coherence to the field of critical discussion or in expanding it beyond the Jell-o belt. The AML discussion board is essentially stagnant; and while the AML-listserv does facilitate some extended discussion, where does it go from there and to whom? Maybe I’m just too young and naive to know better; maybe the organization and the field of Mormon studies is building to some critical mass that will soon explode, taking Mormon letters forward in unprecedented ways (there are, after all, more acceptable? accredited? opportunities in academia and beyond for Mormon scholars to openly do their work). I don’t know. I’d just like to see the discussion move beyond the same old well-worn path. Maybe a Mormon Jane Austen’s the key.

I don’t know if you have the answers to these ramblings—maybe no one does—but the turn of our discussion really got me thinking.

And do take a look at Reading Until Dawn. I’d be interested in your expansion of the issues Matriscian raises. I’ve got some contributors working on submissions as we speak and I’m in the process of getting the first essay ready to post. The more the merrier.

Second, as per your comment “It seems like the discussions on the issue never really move anywhere, iterating and reiterating the same basic points”, my response is, “Yeah, pretty much.” As per my citation of Eugene England, I was hearing these discussions as an undergrad at BYU in the 1970s. Also, I’m not quite sure why we’re worried about Mormon Shakespeares and Miltons when, quite frankly, there haven’t been any American Shakespeares and Miltons or, for that matter, any additional English-language Shakespeares or Miltons. Shakespeare and Milton were rare birds. Beside, I think that Jane Austin is a much better role model for LDS authors than Shakespeare or Milton.

Third, I’ll be happy to look at Reading Until Dawn and consider a submission. I assume you’d like more expansion on the LDS issues than the few comments I make above. ..bruce..

I think your discussion of the Mormonness of Meyer’s world and the things you touch on regarding how LDS authors might/should approach their writing are always relevant, even though it seems like the discussions on the issue never really move anywhere, iterating and reiterating the same basic points. I’ve started to wish that, instead of focusing so much energy on adapting other literary/cultural models to our discussions of Mormon literature/culture that someone would frame an authentic Mormon theory (whatever that might entail–it’s still a bit fuzzy in my mind); that instead of focusing so much on the quest for Mormon Shakespeares and Miltons that we could find authentic Mormon artists as role models.

But I digress.

Would you be willing to expand this treatment of Matriscian’s article on Meyer to be included in Reading Until Dawn, an online anthology of critical essays I’m editing as a correlative to my association with A Motley Vision? We’re looking for essays that can cast the general Meyer discourse in a more critical tone. If you’re interested, the call for submissions can be found here and more information here. I’d appreciate being able to add your insightful discussion to the anthology.

–Tyler Chadwick