Admin: AMV now comment friendly!

Thanks to the intrepid Ebenezer Orthodoxy, A Motley Vision has added two features that make reader interaction much better.

1. A "Recent Comments" section on the sidebar on the home page.

2. A javascript hack that lets readers post comments without logging on to Blogger. Simply fill out the form at the bottom of each post.

Ebenezer's Blogger modifications can be found at Blogger Hacks.

Elsewhere: Time out for a purple pansies fireside

Update 12/23/04: If you are looking for details on "The Fireside Song," see below or click here.
-----

Braden Bell has an interesting post over at To Speak of Many Things on Deseret Book's Time Out for Women progam. I discussed the book club part of the program back in July. Braden's post is on the event part of Time Out. Modeled after Oprah's speaking tour, the one-day events cost $38 and are a sort of motivational seminar/fireside hybrid.

This is Deseret Book's description:

"Time Out for Women is a day long event intended as an opportunity for participants to regroup, commiserate with others facing similar demands, and catch their physical and spiritual breath. Attendees are treated to presentations by several respected authors and artists who address the spiritual challenges and needs of women in the Church."

Braden asks:

"Is this a good idea? Do we want to have an event that will clearly separate the have's and the have-not's? What about women who can't get off work, or whose husbands can't get off work to babysit the kids? Is the potential benefit so great that it outweighs the possible negatives?"

I think those are good questions. So far the comments on the post have been fairly supportive of the program. One comment justly points out that Time Out for Women is similar to programs like Education Week and Especially for Youth. But I have to admit that I am worried that the Deseret Book impramateur of the whole thing (and most importantly the very visible involvement of Sheri Dew) puts this in an area of quasi-official discourse. The kind that's seen as sanctioned, if not official.

Mark Hansen over at Mo' Boy Blog asks readers to list their favorite and least favorite LDS songs. Mark isn't fond of "Little Purple Pansies."

Finally, I haven't seen this crop up in the Bloggernacle yet so I have no idea if everyone else has already heard this and I'm just late to the game, but Alllen Simpson has done a Mormon take-off of Adam Sandler's The Hannukah Song called, appropriately enough, The Fireside Song (a nod to Galactic Cactus for bringing this to my attention). The song is being used to promote LDS Fest, an LDS music festival that will take place in Las Vegas this December.

Film: Merrill's 'Tempest...' brews a stormy dialogue

Update 9.24.04: Merrill's column prompted such a volume of reader mail, that Meridian has asked readers to stop writing in about it. Merrill excerpts and reacts to reader mail in Tempest in a Teacup, Take II: The Broth Boileth Over.
----

Remember when I paranthetically remarked that Kieth Merrill's recent Meridian Magazine article on Mormon film was one of the best things that Meridian has ever published? Well, the article has spawned a fascinating series of replies (and replies to replies) by several prominent figures in the world of Mormon art.

Here are the various replies along with excerpts:

Ken Harris:

"I find it unfortunate, that few within Mormondom seem to understand the difference between correction and complicity in perpetuating mediocrity.

We are so cognizant of the mere possibility of giving offense, or anxious at even the appearance of contention, which we all know is of the devil (3 Nephi 11:29), that we go out of our way to avoid it to an absurd extremity."

Greg Hansen:

"May I submit that the very thing that will make the skilled LDS artist, sculpture, film or play unique is the power of the Holy Ghost that accompanies it.

I advocate an inside-out approach to the arts in Zion.

If we create on our own terms, using the best of the world’s craft, coupled with original, inspired methods of our own within that craft, and infuse it with our own absolute worthiness and individuality, that art will do nothing but become more compelling to all those who want to 'come to Zion and be taught of her ways'. If we create great Mormon art, it will be great just as Michelangelo’s David inspires the world regardless of their variance of belief, and it will be a vehicle for the Spirit."

Preston Hunter:

"I did not agree with everything Kieth Merrill said in his article yesterday, but I also disagree with many of Ken Harris' suggestions.

If we did things Ken's way there would never be any LDS Cinema. Ken would have insisted on waiting for Spike Lee to come around instead of letting Oscar Micheaux or Melvin Van Peebles make any films. The problem with that is, Van Peebles would not have been able to do what he did had it not been for Micheaux, and Spike Lee would not have been able to do what he has done had it not been for Van Peebles. Make no mistake about it: the early films of Micheaux and Van Peebles (and maybe even their best films!) were inferior by the production standards of the day. These films do not necessarily speak to a broader audience. They don't necessarily hold up when looked at today.

But they gave voice to a people, and they broke barriers on the Silver Screen -- barriers that needed to be broken..."

Criticism: Terry Eagleton is Utah-obsessed

Who would have thought that Marxist* cultural theorist Terry Eagleton would have a thing for Mormons?

Not me.

And yet in his recent book After Theory, Eagleton makes a Utah reference not once -- but twice.

Some A Motley Vision readers may wonder why I am reading a book by a gasp Marxist, but it's actually rather interesting. I mean it's way too strident, and I disagree with Eagleton on many things, but his critique of postmodern literary theory and cultural studies is very good -- pointed, polemical and yet substantive. And I do agree with the points he makes about some of the productive contributions of postmodernism to literary studies. I also agree with some of his observations on the downside of a our modern fast-track, consumerist version of capitalism even if we are very far apart on what the ultimate solution is.

However, I also found his not-really-veiled-but-not-straightforward allusions to the events of 9/11 and Islamic terrorism (and other 'fundamentalist threats') to be cutesy [the crazed Raggedy Ann doll cute -- not puppy dog cute] rather than clever.

Indeed his whole way of tossing out examples that are obviously obvious and casually dismissing or invoking events/beliefs comes across as mere posturing, a descent into punditry that is entertaining [when it's not irritating] but not illuminating.

This is where the Mormon references come in.

Reference 1: "Postmodernism seems at times to behave as though the classical bourgeoisie is alive and well, and thus finds itself living in the past. It spends much of its time assailing absolute truth, objectivity, timeless moral values, scientific inquiry and a belief in historical progress. It calls into question the autonomy of the individual, inflexible social and sexual norms, and the belief that there are firm foundations to the world. Since all of these values belong to a bourgeois world on the wane, this is rather like firing off irascible letters to the press about the horse-riding Huns or marauding Carthaginians who have taken over the Home Counties.

This is not to say that these beliefs do not still have force. In place like Ulster and Utah, they are riding high. But nobody on Wall Street and few in Fleet Street believe in absolute truth and unimpeachable foundations" (17-18).

One might well ask 'what's wrong with absolute truth and unimpeachable foundations?'[and actually Eagleton is critical of 'realtivist postmodernists' -- he just has a problem with religion (as any good Marxist should)], but I think what irks me about this tossed out comparison is that it seems to be made almost solely for the alliteration.

For example, he uses a similar formulation later in the book when he writes that fundamentalism is flourishing "as much in Montana as in the Middle East" (199).

Of course, it also connects Mormonism to Unionism, and I'm not convinced that that's a very good comparison. Or at the least, if you're going to make it, at least provide some sort of justification for it beyond consonant word sounds.


Reference 2: "Absolute truth does not mean non-historical truth: it does not mean the kind of truths which drop from the sky, or which are vouchsafed to us by some bogus prophet from Utah. On the contrary, they are truths which are discovered by argument, evidence, experiment, investigation" (106-109).

There's no need to comment on this one other than to say that I don't know about you, but I'm feeling rather vouchsafed at the moment.

ALSO: Spiked has a good review of After Theory that better illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of the book than I have here.

Source: Terry Eagleton. After Theory. Allen Lane: London, 2003.

*Just to be clear Eagleton is a Marxist Marxist -- not a Maoist or Leninist. Or to put it more bluntly: he's a socialist not a 'commie.'

Film: A Motley Vision confesses

Dave's Mormon Inquiry brought to my attention a recent Meridian Magazine article by award-winning filmmaker Kieth Merrill on Mormon film. Dave then asks his readers how many Mormon films they've seen.

I have nothing to say about the Merrill article [except that it's the best thing he's written for Meridian, and probably the best article Meridian has ever published], but I do have an answer for Dave:

Zero.

Yep, my secret shame has now been revealed. I have not seen a single work from the world of Mormon cinema. I haven't even seen the recent LDS Church-produced films such as "Legacy" and "Testaments." I did watch the free DVD about Christ that was included in an issue of Ensign. But that's it.

This will especially come as a surprise to my family who gave me a VHS of "God's Army" for my birthday two years ago. I'm very glad they gave it to me, and I do want to watch it. I just haven't yet.

Clearly my abstinence in this area of Mormon culture has nothing to do with lack of knowledge and/or interest. I think it's safe to say that I've read almost every review of every Mormon film that has been released.

So what's the deal?

1. I'm not a serious filmgoer anyway. During the course of our six-year marriage, my wife and I have gone to an average of 2-3 films a year in the theater and rented 6-8 and caught a few others on television.

2. Film screenings take big chunks of time. Especially now that we have a kid, our entertainment works best if it can be broken down into small segments. So I read a lot of books and magazines, surf the Web, and watch a lot of TV. And we don't have cable so the shows we get always have commercials and are generally either short [my favorites right now are the 'nontraditional' sitcoms "Scrubs" and "Arrested Development"] or not so captivating that you can't tear yourself away to do necessary chores or go to bed, etc.

3. Movie going is expensive and is a one-time experience with the work. I don't spend a ton of money on entertainment. I get most of my reading material from the library. I rarely buy books and when I do, it's always something that I've already read that I want to own -- to re-read and write about. Other than that, it's the occasional CD -- which, at least for me, offer a lot more repeat entertainment. There are very films that I can watch more than once a year. [And, yes, I know, I know -- the solution is Netflix]

4. I live in Oakland. When Mormon films do play in the Bay Area, it's usually out in Contra Costa County or down in the San Jose area -- at least a 40 minute drive away. I commute 3 hours every workday. I want my entertainment to come to me. And I usually don't find out about it when films do play in the area. As much as I keep up with news from the world of Mormon cinema, I don't bother to check individual film Web sites to find out where they are playing.

As a side note, what would be great is if someone would set up Mormon film screening RSS feeds by region [Northern California, Utah County, etc.].

5. Obviously, the best way for those outside of the Mormon corridor to view Mormon films is on DVD or VHS. But my DVD buying habits are the same as with books -- I only buy films that I've already seen and know that I want to own. My siblings have seen several of the Mormon films because they've borrowed them from friends or screened them as part of a group activity. But they're all still in college. When my wife and I get together with friends, we do what married couples tend to do when they socialize -- eat and talk.

6. Finally, and this speaks somewhat to why I haven't watched "God's Army" yet even though I own it, I don't know if I'm ready for Mormon cinema. I have very mixed feelings on film as a medium anyway, to mix it with Mormonism…

Yes, I'm excited by the idea in theory and certainly hope to see the genre succeed. And I'm fascinated by how Mormon films are marketed, reviewed and received. But there's a part of me that feels like any Mormon film I watch -- even one as well-reviewed as "Brigham City" [which I totally want to see one day] -- is going to manipulate me and/or let me down in ways that I'm just not ready for.

Of course, another part of me is whispering, "dude, you've written a couple of screenplays…" [Which is true -- four to be exact -- and my friend and I actually made two of them into short films (shot on video) that aired on a local public access channel. But at the moment, I'm not interested at all in hopping on that bandwagon. Critical essays and short stories are what I'm in to now (even if they are all on the back burner and it's turned to LO].

Pop: Mormon artists and membership status, part II

The days have slipped by, but I finally have found the time to take up the third question I posed on my initial post on Mormon artists and membership status. That is: Should an artist's Mormon-ness be a factor when a Mormon decides which artistic products to consume?

I'm going to answer this question by laying out three different position, well aware that in so doing I will probably end up misrepresenting all three (including my own).

It does matter: The world is filled with art that is immoral and objectionable. Hollywood has gone off the deep end. The standards that used to keep objectionable things off of broadcast TV have eroded away. You just can't trust most non-LDS artists to produce works that are consonant with LDS standards. Although there may be a few non-LDS sources of art that are okay, most are not, and it's simply safer to stick with art that is produced for the LDS and/or 'family' market. Therefore, the best thing to do is to limit yourself to works created by trusted sources and sold by trusted retailers [chiefly, but not limited to, Deseret Book and Seagull Book & Tape].

Just as important: LDS artists create work that is inspiring. Why wouldn't someone want to partake mainly of art that affirms gospel values?

This type of Mormon consumer does seem to exist -- or at least so the LDS market suggests in terms of what works sell and how publishers and booksellers market their products.

I think it is a valid stance to take. I personally believe that Mormon consumers should be as omnivorous as possible in terms of the type of works they consume -- and especially in trying out genres and modes of art that they don't know very well. It's easy to get stuck in only reading speculative fiction or only listening to country western music, etc. However, I also understand why some consumers set rather narrow boundaries on the type of content they consume although my personal opinion is that art with a certain amount of explicitness can be just as moral as art that is sanitized.

It doesn't matter: Mormon consumers should judge a work by what it is -- not by who created it. Art can be powerful and entertaining no matter the source -- active LDS, inactive (or disaffected) LDS, or gentile.

The LDS market produces rather immature, sentimental and/or didactic works and all of those in a narrow genre range.

When it comes to artists who are Mormon, but don't focus on the LDS market, well, who cares? If they are good and you like what they do, fine. But there's no reason to support them just because they are members.

And an artist's membership status definitely shouldn't matter. After all, people can be hypocrites. Artists have lived double lives before in order to have a career in a certain market (like, for instance, Christian rock/country musicians).

I find this argument quite compelling, and I know quite a few Mormons who follow this model. And to be clear -- this model is not simply one espoused by those who are academically-trained and are into 'elite' art. There are quite a few Mormons who ignore the Mormon market and LDS artists of any market and just go with what they like -- whether that be Jane Austen novels, Wagnerian operas or the films of Steven Spielberg.

However, this is not the model that dictates my habits as a consumer of art.

It does matter: It matters to me. And not just because of some sense of ethnic pride or wanting to support other members of my tribe (although those factors probably play a role as well). It matters because I want to consume art that comes from the experience of being a Mormon -- whether that art overtly deals with that experience or not. I'm a narcissist. I want to see traces of myself and my belief and culture in artistic works. Of course, I also hope that art created by Mormons will help me better understand myself and other Mormons.

I'm interested in works created for the Mormon market as well as those that aim for a national audience even though I have misgivings about both markets.

Now that doesn't seem like that controversial of a position -- but I'm going to take it a step further.

The artist's membership status also matters to me.

Yes, I consume and take an active interest in art by artists who are no longer active in the church or whose Mormon background is mainly cultural. But I find that I'm most enthusiastic about art -- and by that I mean those cultural products that have high aesthetic value (I'm not interested in didactic art ) -- that is created by active, believing member (or at least those who appear to be so).

Essentially, I'm fascinated by the idea of literary discourse colliding with Mormon belief and practice and have this hope that they can do so in productive ways.

No, actually if I'm being honest with myself, my desires are a little more base than that. I have a deep passion for artistic discourse and at the same time I resent it. I also have a deep belief in the gospel. My hope then is that works that are created by a believing Mormon will subvert artistic discourse while at the same time being morally and aesthetically rich enough (i.e. successful as artistic discourse) to validate LDS beliefs and practices as a vibrant, legitimate source for art.

Now, as I've written before, I'm not sure about the whole idea of art and the Holy Spirit so I'm not speaking from a belief that LDS artists can create great art via inspiration -- but I do think that an artist who lives in accordance with LDS standards puts him or herself in an interesting place for creating art, a place I hope to be in, a place that I hope can be productive.

All this is not to say that I would stop reading an author's novels if I discovered she or he stopped attending church. Nor do I believe that artists who don't live LDS standards are incapable of producing powerful, exciting, moral works of art.

It's just that when I look deep down, as much as it bothers me at times, I can't escape this feeling that it should matter, it does matter and it will matter. And because of that, an artist's Mormon-ness is a factor in what art I choose to consume.

ALSO: The Baron of Deseret has responded to all three questions. As usual, his cultural commentary is quite good.

Interview: Author and former Irreantum editor Christopher Bigelow

Last spring Christopher Bigelow stepped down after five years as managing editor of Irreantum, the Association for Mormon Letters' literary magazine. Bigelow and Benson Parkinson co-founded Irreantum in 1999, taking what was the AML's newsletter and turning it into a full-fledged literary mag. Parkinson moved on to other projects after the first year of publication, and Bigelow was left as sole managing editor. He farmed out the major departments -- poetry, fiction, essays, reviews -- to others, and then did much of the grunt work, overseeing the production and distribution of the magazine and handling the interviews and publishing news. The first few issues were rather thin on content and roughly designed, but with the winter 2000-01 issue, Bigelow and his team had generated enough submissions to fill 100+ pages. He also came up with a minimalist, but pleasant and professional design. During the next four years, the magazine published quality fiction and poetry, landed interviews with many of the major Mormon writers and filmmakers, and became the most complete source of reviews and news of Mormon fiction, film and drama. Throughout this time Bigelow and his department editors held to the vision that he and Parkinson began with -- to put out a publication that appealed to a broad spectrum of Mormon readers.

Bigelow holds a B.F.A. in writing from Emerson College and an M.A. in creative writing from Brigham Young University. He did a six year stint at the Ensign, co-founded the Mormon satirical publication The Sugar Beet, and has edited fiction and non-fiction titles for the major Utah publishers. The AML presented Bigelow with an award for editing at its March 2003 annual meeting.

A Motley Vision decided to catch up with Chris and ask about his post-Irreantum plans:

Although I enjoy all of Irreantum's content, what I value most are the short stories. What are your favorite stories that Irreantum published during your tenure?

One of my favorite writers we published was Darin Cozzens, whose story "The Darlington Girls" appeared in the summer 2001 issue and "Vigil" in summer 2002. In addition, I really enjoyed his memoir titled "Porch Haircut" in the winter 2003/spring 2004 issue. Cozzens's writing strikes a chord of authenticity and brings scenes and characters to life so well it makes my eyes water.

During my five years, we published a fair bit of speculative fiction (a.k.a. science fiction and fantasy). While I didn't personally enjoy all this fiction, two stories in particular engaged my imagination and made a lasting impression: Lee Allred's "For the Strength of the Hills," a long piece that we split between the winter 2000-2001 and spring 2001 issues, and Susan J. Kroupa's "Harden Times," which appeared in spring 2002.

I enjoyed and appreciated two emerging authors who, while writing pretty close to the mainstream, brought clear-eyed realism and a subtly sophisticated style to their work. Darlene Young's "Companions" appeared in winter 2001-2002 and "Rissa Orders Cheescake" in autumn 2002. Angela Hallstrom's "Trying" appeared in autumn 2003. I'd like to see some novels from these writers in a similar voice and form.

Of the more established literary writers whose work we published, I found the following two stories most beguiling and memorable: "Long after Dark," by Todd Robert Petersen, appearing in the summer 2000 issue, and "The Care of the State," Brian Evenson, winter 03/spring 04.

You did most of the interviews. Assuming they would have agreed to do it, who else would you have liked to interview?

I would have liked to do a special issue on Mormon drama, with Eric Samuelsen as one of our main interviewees. I never could find a guest editor to head up a drama-themed issue, however, so the plan never came to fruition. I probably should have just gone ahead and interviewed Samuelsen anyway. Also, at the time I stepped aside, I was planning to interview two Mormons who are working in New York publishing: literary agent Amy Jameson and editor Anne Soward. Perhaps, after I take a year or two off from Irreantum, I may still eventually do these interviews, if the new editors want them and someone else hasn't already done them by then.

In your opinion, what is the coolest thing (individual work, publication, phenomenon, trend...) in the world of Mormon letters right now?

In the area of Mormon novels, the two I'm most excited about remain unpublished: rich, provocative works by D. Michael Martindale and Todd Robert Petersen. I believe both speak more to the Mormon audience than to a national audience, but it's hard to imagine a mainstream Mormon publisher picking either one up, so I don't know who would or could publish them effectively, beyond Signature perhaps doing a 500-copy edition.

I love the plays of Eric Samuelsen, which are what first drew me into the world of Mormon literature starting back in 1992 or 1993, when I saw "Accommodations" produced at BYU. I hope he does another one soon.

I think Mormon satire is a cool movement, which I'm involved with through The Sugar Beet, although I think too much of it crosses the line into anti-Mormonism (never The Sugar Beet, of course). I'd like to see some of this get into print rather than just remain an online phenomenon, but perhaps most Mormons see it as too scurrilous.

I have some interesting Mormon-related memoirs on my shelf that I'll probably read before any more Mormon novels, such as one by a woman who was raised in polygamy and several by people who have left the faith or encountered the faith from outside.

I don't feel very excited about Mormon film right now, because there's been too much mediocre Halestorm-style stuff for my taste. I've seen only about half of the available films in this movement, and the only one I've liked since "Brigham City" has been "The Best Two Years," and I don't think I've ever seen a Mormon film that I absolutely loved. I'm hoping Richard Dutcher brings up my interest level again with his next project.

What about on the national scene?

I don't pretend to be particularly up to date on the national literary scene. I still think the memoir trend is cool, but that's been going for several years now. I'm worried by recent reports confirming that people are buying and reading ever fewer books. As for me, when it comes to fiction I tend to read mostly mainstream literary novels, not anything too esoteric. My favorites that I've read over the last year or so have included The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen, The Crimson Petal and the White by Michel Faber, Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides, Seek My Face by John Updike, and Oryx & Crake by Margaret Atwood.

What's next for you as an editor/writer?

Right now my main project is co-authoring Mormonism for Dummies with Jana Riess, which is scheduled for publication in February 2005. There's a lot of fun, substantial writing going into this, and the collaboration is working out very well. It's gratifying to have a real book contract, receive real advance checks, and look forward to seeing a real book on the shelves, even if it's not the kind of book project I originally set out to do.

By the end of this year, I will have finished up three years of writing and editorial work on The Sugar Beet, a Mormon satirical newsletter. During 2002 and 2003, our online edition attracted 10,000 -- 20,000 monthly readers and was featured by several newspapers and radio stations, including an article on the front page of the Salt Lake Tribune. During 2004 we've been experimenting with doing a print edition, but with only 250 subscribers we've decided it's not worth doing beyond this first year. It's possible that we'll continue to e-mail around some reportage in dribs and drabs after our organized publication efforts conclude at the end of this year, but it's also possible that The Sugar Beet will have completely run its course by then. Another possibility is that a new web master will arise and rejuvenate the online enterprise. I'd love to see a Best of the Sugar Beet book sometime.

I have two potential projects for 2005, a memoir and a novel. I've already done several proposal versions for the memoir, focusing on different aspects of growing up Mormon and serving a mission. My agent has gotten three or four editors very interested, and some of them still seem open to the possibility down the road. At one point we even penetrated into the top decision-making committee at HarperSanFrancisco. However, a contract hasn't yet materialized, and this project isn't currently on anybody's front burner, although it may heat up again after the Dummies project is completed. My novel is about a Mormon woman in Boston who inadvertently marries into a nonreligious polygamous situation. A few years ago I wrote a first draft that I've never gone back and read straight through, but I'm getting excited to revisit this project with some real time and effort.

And finally: what type of situation would be so attractive that you would consider acting as a managing editor again? Would you be interested in editing a mainstream literary journal, another Mormon studies journal, a book series?

If I felt that I had some new way to attract lots more readers and generate more buzz, I could see myself taking the helm of Irreantum again someday. However, I wouldn't want to go back to the same plateau on which I left the magazine, with circulation static at 500 and little or no reader response, media acknowledgement, etc.

I would not be interested in editing a mainstream literary journal unless it made sense in the context of a larger career move, such as trying to get involved with a university. As far as other Mormon journals, I've given serious thought to applying for the editorships of Sunstone and Dialogue when they've come open in recent years -- in fact, I even interviewed with the Sunstone people -- but I'm not sure I'm as academic or intellectually omnivorous as would be optimal.

Theoretically, I would love to be involved with Mormon book publishing, because I've encountered several authors and manuscripts that I'd like to see published well. However, I'm skeptical about reaching the audience I'm interested in serving any better than Signature is already doing. I guess the bottom line is that I don't feel enough trust, faith, or respect for the Mormon reading audience to get real excited about getting into book publishing, either for an established publisher or with a new enterprise. I'm more intrigued by the potential in taking Mormon stories to an outside audience.

Frankly, I continually feel a fair bit of angst and ennui related to career. I have a good corporate job, but I still haven't found a way to earn a living doing what I really love, which is working on my own creative writing and editing projects.

Thanks, Chris!