Mormon literaturstreit: against the Sophic Tide!
Hello.
I have two things for you: an overview of the next entry in the Mormon Literaturstreit and an update on how my fiction writing is going (what a difference a month can make!).
In June, I attended the only literary convention I attend: 4th Street Fantasy.
Part of that is because it’s local to me. Part of that is because it’s a single track convention (as in only one panel at a time) with panels that tend to be intellectually challenging. Sometimes things can get a bit muddled, but overall, it’s a valuable experience. And the hotel is within walking distance of numerous restaurants, which is nice because it means extra-panel conversation doesn’t all just end up happening in the bar.
This year I was on programming for the first time—as a member of a panel titled “Art Has A Frame.” I’ll be writing some follow-up thoughts on that panel in my quarterly newsletter that’s dedicated to my non-Mormon-centric literary activity. If you’re interested in that, you can sign up here: Oddities, Pretensions, and Curiosities
Mormon Literaturestreit—Cracroft fires back
Just one Mormon Literaturstreit post this month, but it’s, to my mind, the key entry in the series:
Mormon Literaturstreit: Richard Cracroft fires back against the “Sophic Tide”
Brief Summary
Using his AML presidential address, Richard Cracroft counters Bruce W. Jorgensen’s own presidential address by going right in on what he sees wrong with a big tent approach. He does so by invoking the Orthodox Mormon readership and (his perception of) their needs and sensibilities. Cracroft claims to want to avoid litumus tests and simplistic dualities in defining Mormon literature, but, borrowing terms from Hugh Nibley, says that Mormon critics should champion the “Mantic” (a metaphysical worldview) writers over the “Sophic” (a scientific rationalist worldview) ones. In doing so, he reconstitutes a binary view of Mormon literature that doesn’t leave room for the possibility of postive encounters with the other that Jorgensen was advocating. It also ignores that most writers, critics, and readers don’t have worldviews that break along tidy lines.
Key Quote
“We need, for a change, an alternative criticism, a Latter-day Saint criticism centered in the gospel, in Mormon faith, and not in the Sophic creeds of secularism. By ‘Faithful Criticism’ I do not mean a criticism that shuts its eyes to falseness, to the lies of sentimentalism, or promotes tidy didacticism and deus ex machina conclusions. I do not call for a Literary Divining Rod to be bestowed on qualified LDS critics for the purpose of detecting the presence of the Holy Ghost-although given Elder Whitney’s pronouncement that the Holy Ghost is the genius of Mormon literature, such wouldn’t hurt.”
Why It’s Important
Because it illustrates both the strengths and weaknesses of Cracroft’s argument. On the one hand, a uniquely Mormon criticism that is wide awake to both the shortcomings of sentimentalism and didacticism and the secular disdain for anything religious is welcome. This middle ground is something I’ve tried to be an advocate for and example of during my entire time as a writer focused on Mormon literature. On the other hand, both Cracroft’s rhetoric and the specific examples he uses in this address as well as his review of Harvest don’t appear to me to be anything more than a waving of a “literary divining rod” that grants specific texts or authors sufficient LDS-ness or not.
This is the danger of focusing on defining genre boundaries (something Jorgensen also does) rather than how specific texts operate within the fields of culture, discourse, religious communities, commerce, etc.
NEXT UP: two responses attempting to chart a middle ground.
On Not Not Writing
Last time I mentioned that I’ve been working on several pieces of fiction but hadn’t gained momentum with any of them.
What a difference a month makes.
I’ve written quite a bit on the Mormon SF novella—I’m now 40% or so into the first draft. That’s the one I described last month as “science fiction (including aliens [of sorts]) but is also a Künstlerroman (of sorts) and a temple story [of sorts].”
And then last week I wrote the first draft of a short story in a single day. Haven’t done that for awhile.
I suppose this is a lesson in being persistent, and that’s certainly part of it.
But there’s another key thing: generally what gets me into a writing groove is when—whether that’s writing a certain amount into the first draft or outlining outside of it or both—I can establish a voice/tone and a structure that gives me hooks to grab onto. Once those are in place, it’s much easier to both feel motivated to return to the work and get started and make progress when I sit down to write.
Does it work that way for you as well?
Thanks for reading! Donations to support the costs of both this newsletter and keeping A Motley Vision's full archives online are welcome: Paypal