Soapbox: Mormons and media consumption

Note: when I began A Motley Vision last summer, I promised myself that I wouldn't recycle material that I had written for the AML List except for this essay (polemic). But then I couldn't find it anywhere -- not in my e-mail, not on my hard drive -- and the AML archives were down for quite a while (and difficult to navigate). I finally found it earlier this week. And the timing was excellent. The essay was precipated by a discussion on Mormons and R-rated movies. A similar discussion erupted over at By Common Consent this week. But it was Rusty's post asking Is It Possible To Contribute To Culture Without Partaking Of It? at Kulturblog that really motivated me to adapt this for AMV.

----

I believe that there are three important factors that we Latter-day Saints should employ when consuming art. Each of these factors has strengths; each has weaknesses. But most importantly the three should be used in concert with each other.

1. Carefully choose what you consume

I think that we should be careful about what we consume. And I think we should draw lines beyond the obvious (pornography) in accordance with our own set of tolerances and reactions to art. For example, unlike some other members of the Church, I don't watch R-rated films. This practice would be applauded by those Mormons who take a hard line on this matter. But the thing is, I have the suspicion that there are indeed R films that are valuable, powerful works of art that teach lessons that certain members need to learn.

No. The reason that I choose not to watch R films is that I'm very sensitive to images and sounds -- they stick with me too much and I have a hard time contextualizing them. The same is not true of literature. I can process sex and violence in written narrative much easier. I don't know why that is, but because it is so, I've made the decision to safeguard myself.

So I think we should be careful what we consume and that it is perfectly valid to not read or view something because you have concerns about the content. However, I also believe that to take an extreme position in this regard is unwise. An extremely narrow definition of appropriate material can cause problems for the following reasons:

A) Things that are forbidden often become quite attractive, especially for youth.

Let me give you an example. When I was a kid, one of my friends lived in one of those strict Word of Wisdom households -- you know the kind where no refined sugar or white flour is used, where carob is consumed instead of chocolate, where applesauce is the main sweetener. Since sugar was forbidden, it held a great attraction for my friend, and he became a sugar junkie. I used to accompany him on his paper route, and we would stop at the convenience store and blow much of his route money on sugar. He was an addict to the extent that he'd buy stuff that was on sale (I remember, for instance, him buying a whole paper bag full of stale malt balls) so he could get the most sugar for his money. Now this is not to say that kids in sugar-consuming households also don't get addicted to sugar -- in fact, what kid doesn't? -- but with him there was a certain edge to his addiction, which I attribute to it being forbidden.

B) When things are viewed as completely evil (I'm thinking especially of sex), youth often get a stereotyped, one-dimensional view of things, which can lead to difficulties when they are exposed to different views or later encounter them in a healthy way. Not only that, but when things are made forbidden, I think that we often invest them with too much power so that it can be difficult to screen them out or to withstand them when they are thrust in our face. And that happens. It's impossible to keep ourselves and our children in a protective bubble.

C) When a particular genre is vilified, especially one that while it may have an evil aspect to it can still be powerful art (i.e. something like rock 'n roll -- again I'm not talking about pornography, which should definitely be rejected), it leads youth (and adults) sometimes into making decisions that they maybe don't need to make. In other words, if kids think that you can't be a good Mormon and listen to gothic music, but at the time gothic music is what is speaking to them most powerfully, then perhaps they become involved in the parts of the gothic scene that are wrong and destructive because they see it as an either/or choice. Much better, in my opinion, is if we can pull things out of the genre that are powerful, good art, that speak to us, but view the scene as a whole with an LDS-critical lens, so that we don't buy it all wholesale. You can listen to ambient or jungle music without taking ecstasy. Which leads me to point number 2.

2. Develop critical tools with which to approach the consumption of art

In the original discussion on the AML List that led to this essay, someone had mentioned that no one is suggesting that we read mainstream literature like we read scripture. I disagree to a certain extent.

While we shouldn't give literature the same power to guide us and form our theological beliefs as we do scripture, I do think that we should approach worldly (for lack of a better term) narratives with a critical eye. This doesn't mean simply (and easily) categorizing works of fiction as evil or good by whether or not a character commits adultery or not (for example), but by using the Mormon way of understanding sin, repentance, consequences, agency, the unrighteous exercise of dominion, epiphany, faith, death, love, hate, family relationships, etc. to approach the piece of art.

I believe that narrative art is a powerful way to learn about life, about humanity. I believe that we should be humble enough to allow ourselves to expose our mind and soul to art of all kinds, but when we do so, we can approach it with a critical (yet charitable) mindset that allows us to experience art without shaking the foundations of our faith.

That's hard to do in an honest way. And I want to reiterate that you should use my first approach above to help you decide which works of art to consume, but you should have enough confidence in this second approach to allow yourself to consume art that may be difficult or foreign. And your critical tools shouldn't be limited to your view of the gospel, but also to those more formal aspects related to art -- concepts of genre formulas, language, imagery, editing (for movies), etc. If you are aware of the tricks of the trade, of how artists create the effect they do, then perhaps the work won't be quite so threatening and you can create a critical distance that allows you to gain something without it fundamentally changing your worldview.

If these critical lenses are correctly used, then you find that while your foundational beliefs remain (my belief in the divine mission of Christ and the reality of the restoration for instance) and your understanding of how this life plays out -- the pains, pleasures and complexities of mortality---increases, and your worldview becomes more civil, charitable and enriched.

Now I also want to bring up a point of caution. You need to be incredibly honest with yourself. It's very easy to use your estimation of your ability to handle things as an excuse to expose yourself to works of art that perhaps you shouldn't -- to think you are stronger than you are and to let licentious desires (and this isn't just about sex, it's also about violence, wallowing in melancholy, schadenfreude, voyeurism, etc.) creep in. While I ask for a broad definition of appropriate art works, I also want to caution against pride and the flaxen cords that can bind those who truly do become decadent intellectuals. I think many of us, however, need to worry less about the 'intellectuals' and to worry more about if we are becoming to insular in our media habits, so insular that it becomes difficult to relate with (and to easy for us to wrongly judge) other members and our neighbors and relatives.

This relates to what Rusty discusses in terms of creating art. He asks: "Can we expect to contribute to our culture, especially our pop culture, without partaking of it as well?" I think the same is true of consuming art. Or as Pris comments on Rusty's post: "Once something becomes part of pop culture, it provides us all as a frame of reference -- it gives us something to share."

3. Become an omnivorous media consumer

After completing my master's degree in literature, I found myself with a lot of reading time to fill (my work commute is an hour and a half one-way). I started out alternating between literary fiction and speculative fiction with the occasional piece of literary criticism thrown in. It was great. But after six months or so I kind of phased out the literary fiction for five or six weeks and went on a steady diet of speculative fiction. At some point I returned to a piece of literary fiction and found that I couldn't read it. I was too used to the fast-paced, plot-driven, smoothly-written, cool-ideas world of speculative fiction.

I like speculative fiction a lot. And what I was reading was some of the best of the field so this wasn't a case of junk over substance. It's that I didn't have the patience for literary fiction anymore so I just avoided it. This didn't last long. I found the patience to return to literary fiction. But it was an interesting lesson. I'm sure the rest of you aren't quite as susceptible as I am to this sort of thing (after reading a particularly powerful work I often walk around speaking in my head in the voice of that work), but it's something to look out for.

One of the problems with limiting yourself to a particular genre is that it's easy to get lazy so once you've read the good stuff in the genre, you pick up the not-so-good stuff either. I've seen this happen with a relative of mine and spy novels. He started out being quite discriminating about what he'd read in the genre, but then ... not so much. Laziness is the easiest way to get into trouble with media consumption.

Becoming more omnivorous in our patterns of consumption allows us to:

A) Skim the best from each genre and art form -- that whole 13th article of faith thing.

B) Discover the limitations in the genres, forms, artists and authors we adore most so that we become better judges (part of that whole critical lens thing). For instance, I think that it's good for opera lovers to listen to rock music and discover that opera music is as much about sex and violence as modern rock is (and vice versa).

C) Invigorate our consumption patterns, which can easily become stale.

D) Become more discriminating but less snobbish about the genres we prefer.

Becoming more of a media omnivore takes work. But I think it's worth it. And it's something I need to do better at. For instance, I know next to nothing about classical music. I'm sure there's stuff out there that I might like better than the Romantic-era classical (Beethoven) music that dominates the American recording and performing scene (partly because of movie scores, I think), but I haven't really looked for it.

4. The need for critics

I want to make a final point: all the above underscores the need for critics (good critics), and especially for Mormon critics. Critics can help us sift through and find the best stuff. Critics can suggest ways of reading/viewing/listening that will help us develop our own critical tools. Critics can help keep alive the best works of each decade.

Yes, critics can also suck the joy out of art. But that doesn't need to be the case. We need more Mormon criticism -- both academic and popular criticism. There is some good work being done in this field. But I'd like to see more, especially in the realms of music, visual arts, and film.

I fear that too often Mormon media consumption patterns are set by the most conservative Mormons consumers. They have been allowed to limit the definitions of what is 'faith-promoting' and 'appropriate' (which generally means that a work has no 'objectionable' material and it's been created by a Mormon and thus is good by default -- no matter how shoddy the work itself actually is).

I don't think that the solution is to paternalistically tell conservative Mormon consumers what they should think, buy and consume (despite my sermon above). Rather, I see a need for all Mormons to work harder at applying, teaching and writing about each of the three areas I list. And, in particular, for liberal Mormons to do more at engaging with and becoming part of the LDS market (of products and ideas).

Theatre: Eric Samuelsen's "Family" opens March 2

"Family," a new play by Eric Samuelsen, associate professor of theatre at BYU, opens next month.

Samuelsen is one of the premiere LDS playwrights and any new work by him is not-to-be-missed by those who who are interested in the world of Mormon arts and culture. I will, of course, miss it [unless someone wants to fly me out to Utah and provide room, board and transportation].

The play, directed by David Morgan, is a comedy with dramatic overtones (you know -- like the Gilmore Girls [that sounds flip -- but I really like the Gilmore Girls]) and according to the press release:

"[It] follows the struggles of a generally loving and supportive Mormon family through one extremely bad day...

"...The children in the family are each coming home after failing to complete an important part of their lives. For one, it's a marriage commitment. For another, it is a graduate program. For another, it is a Church mission....

"...Each of the four children comes home to seek comfort and answers. At a moment of crisis, love and laughter reveal the family's inner strength."

Samuelsen is the winner of three AML Awards. He has taught at BYU since 1992.

Of his new play, he says:

"Family is where you can't get away with anything ... Family is where the people know you so well that they see right through all your posturing and pretentiousness. But also, the family is a place where they respect you enough to allow you much needed privacy. The Hulls in my play aren't perfect, and they make mistakes. But they muddle through pretty effectively."

And:

"We are afraid as Mormons to reinvent ourselves, and it holds us back. We need to be constantly reborn. I think that is what repentance is. We can't ever settle -- life won't let us. We have to rethink things, re-decide who we are and what we mean to each other."

The play runs March 2-5, 8-12 and 15-19 at the Margetts Theatre on the BYU campus. Performances are at 7:30 p.m. Preview performances are March 2-3 at 7:30 p.m. and a matinee is scheduled for Saturday, March 12, at 2 p.m.

Tickets may be purchased by calling the Fine Arts Ticket Office at (801) 378-4322 or online at the College of Fine Arts Web site.

Addendum
Check out the play's official Study Guide (Adobe Reader required). And Bloggernacle lawyers and poly sci types might be interested to know that one of Samuelsen's early plays is titled "The Seating of Senator Smoot."

Marketing: TWATG film and Joseph Smith's 200th

Excel's marketing team has done a pretty good job hyping the film version of "The Work and the Glory" as it continues to open in theatres across the country. The film's opening has been mentioned and even reviewed in quite a few newspapers. And although the film has so far only met -- not exceeded -- expectations, it's still done fairly well. According to LDS Film, it has now earned $2,639,519 and trails only "The Other Side of Heaven" in box office gross for LDS films.

The film will have a new wave of openings on March 11, and to announce it Excel filed a press release with PR Newswire titled 'The Work and the Glory' Makes Way for 200th Birthday Celebration for Founder of Mormon Church.

The subhed reads:

"The epic film, "The Work and the Glory" continues its nationwide release on March 11, 2005 by releasing into another 78 cities across the country. The film focuses on how the religious claims made by Joseph Smith back in the 1820's affected families and communities as a whole and threatened to tear them apart. 2005 marks the 200th birthday of the religion's founder and the release of the film kicks off a year full of celebrations by its members worldwide."

This is a strategy that I certainly understand, but don't entirely like. I'd probably do the same, but at the same time, this press release is rather coy about the fact that the movie isn't part of the celebration activies of the actual LDS Church.

It's hard for me to describe exactly what I object to because on one level I don't object at all. I certainly don't think that only Church-sanctioned activities should be part of the coverage of Joseph Smith's 200th.

And some might argue that inasmuch as Excel has been bought by Deseret Book and the author of the books the film is based on is a general authority of the Church [one Gerald N. Lund], it's almost like the Church is sponsoring it anyway.

But this mixing of commerce with the activities of the Church kind of bugs me.

This sentence from the press release typifies what I'm talking about:

"Since the limited release of 'The Work and the Glory,' the film has surpassed $2.5 million in box office and serves as the first big event of the year's commemorations which include dance festivals, youth conferences, trips to church historical sites, and symposia."

Elsewhere: Bloggernacle A & E

This week's Bloggernacle A&E column has been posted at The Bloggernacle Times.

Topics include Mormon folklore, aesthetics vs. (or perhaps in coordination with) the spirit, the return of The Sugar Beet and J.R.R. Tolkien and the Book of Mormon.

Film: IndieWire on LDS film

IndieWire has posted an article on the world of LDS cinema.

The title of the article -- Latter-day Cinema: Like Everyone Else, Looking for the Next "Napolean Dynamite" -- is interesting because it reframes the narrative of LDS film a bit. Prior to ND's success, "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" was usually the break-out hit that reporters would say that LDS filmmakers are looking to as a hope, model and inspiration.

Most interesting bit:

"The upsurge in LDS cinema favors the presentation of good-humored and family-friendly offerings like 'Napoleon Dynamite' over a didactic approach to Mormon theology. Misconceived efforts such as 2003's 'The Book of Mormon, Volume 1: The Journey,' which recouped only half of its $2 million production budget in limited release, have been eschewed for micro-budget pictures like Scott Anderson's missionary slice-of-life 'The Best Two Years,' over which distributors Excel and HaleStorm engaged in what may have unofficially been Mormon cinema's first and only bidding war."

Welcome news:

"Simpson and Hale represented Excel at this year's Sundance Festival, prowling perhaps for the next "Napoleon Dynamite" or another unheralded crossover candidate. Hale said he has his eye on Greg Whiteley's documentary 'New York Doll,' about the late punk bassist (and converted Mormon) Arthur 'Killer' Kane. Hale would not comment, however, about the status of distribution negotiations between Excel and Whiteley."

And after following the grosses through LDS Film's weekly report, this news about "The Work and the Glory" doesn't come as a surprise:

"But faithfully adapting Lund's work demanded high-end art direction and costume design recalling upstate New York's Mormon communities of the early 19th century -- the cost of which Excel executives say may be impossible to recoup on its 100-screen wide release, considering both the film's narrow crossover appeal and Excel's limited marketing budget."

News: A tale of two reviews

Although it was published in Oct. 2004 (by St. Martin's Press), "Wives and Sisters," a novel by former Salt Lake Tribune reporter Natalie R. Collins, was reviewed recently by the Indianapolis Star and the Salt Lake Tribune. The result is an interesting exercise in how people outside the Mormon corridor don't understand Mormonism and how people inside the corridor are too enmeshed in it (speaking culturally and politically i.e. setting aside the actual practive of it)

The novel tells the story of a young girl who from the time she is six and on into adolescence and adulthood is terrorized and bullied (physically and sexually) by Mormon men.

Here's an excerpt from the Feb. 13 Indianapolis Star review by Lynn Hopper:

"When she [Allison -- the main character] finally seems to be getting her life on track, she is stalked and raped by the husband of her younger sister. He's a creepy character who then becomes the threat that hangs over the rest of the book as Allison tries to unravel her past.

"But the rapist isn't the real menace. Collins makes it clear that nearly everything that happens is the result of the patriarchal and insular workings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A former Mormon herself, she seems to have intense knowledge of the church, and it is obvious she doesn't like its policies.

"There is an attitude -- perhaps understandable in a religion that has seen a lot of persecution -- of protecting the church at any cost, or at least at any human, female cost.

"Whenever Allison or one of her female relatives needed help, they were shunted aside by the men of the church.

"While one may assume that the Mormon Church would heartily disown the book, and perhaps deny many of the allegations in it, Collins does play fair. She brings in characters, sympathetic ones, who do like the church, and are happy in its teachings."

In his Feb. 12 Salt Lake Tribune review, Martin Naperstack has a much different take on the book.

He writes:

"[The] lack of subtlety is most evident in the attitude the author brings toward the central character in the novel. That character is not Allison Jensen, although most of the action happens to or around her, but rather the LDS Church. Collins, who according to the dust jacket was raised a Mormon and has always lived in Utah (she is a former Salt Lake Tribune employee [AMV comment: heh!]), presents the church as evil.

"Every bad thing that happens in the book is in some way connected to the LDS Church. She presents the church as being filled and run by the type of crazies who believe God has told them to kill people in his name. Even if a reader is willing to believe that the crazies were in some way influenced by the church's teaching, it's a big logical jump to conclude that means all members of the church are either evil or dupes."

He includes various examples from the novel to illustrate the point and then concludes his review with:

"Characters who lack subtlety in their actions or language are fine. There are people like that. But as readers, we have a right to expect their motivations are complex and even beyond their ability to comprehend. That's not what we get in Wives and Sisters.

"We get characters driven either by unbending devotion to church teachings or anger at those who will not bend, evil action sanctioned or excused by church leaders, and conflict as superficial and unrelenting as a soap opera.

"Anger does not promote subtlety, and subtlety promotes art. This is an angry novel."

I was a bit suprised to find that the novel was published by St. Martin's Press. More proof that...

1) the Eastern publishing establishment is trying to capitalize on Mormonism's higher profile
2) the Eastern publishing establisment is mainly interested in narratives that portray Mormons as stand-ins for 'repressive, white, fundie, males + dumb, misguided women'

Not that this is anything new. The evil, rapacious Mormon male trope goes way back.

It would seem that Collins herself is yet another of those "I survived Mormonism" ex-Mo's. Indeed, she has a blog titled Trapped by the Mormons--Living Life Behind the Zion Curtain. The blog isn't all that interesting. She does her triumphalist ex-Mo thing. Members attack her; non-Members give her the big thumbs up for ticking off the Mormons.

Not much new there.

But here's where I'm going with this:

Look. I don't care if you are ex-Mo, Orthodox Mormon or whatever. Somebody write a nuanced, interesting, sophisticated novel with a certain measure of literary value to it and find some eastern publisher publish it. At this point, all we have in recent years is -- what? The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint? Very good novel. But that was almost four years ago. It's time for the national publishers to step up to the plate again.

Music: Low's 'maudlin Mormon message'?

The Harvard Crimson has posted a review of a recent Low concert. It follows the typical story line of Low's music reflecting the band's native Dultuh and the Mormonism of two of its three members -- the husband-wife team Alan Sparhawk and Mimi Parker. What's interesting about the review, though, is that the way it describes the Mormon-ness of the band:

"Alan and Mimi, as practicing Mormons, lead a quiet lifestyle worlds removed from most of their groupies-n-gin peers. Shining through in their lyrics and in their relationship, this faith that sets them apart also brings their sound to a new level. Although less minimalist than their first release (every song title on I Could Live In Hope is one word), The Great Destroyer is just as bare and beautiful as the rest of their albums. The music, although not conducive even to foot-tapping, rewards patience and silence with a beautifully austere, wintry texture reminiscent of Duluth, even in a scene saturated with New York swagger and California ennui. The perfect complement to a cold, listless winter day, Low’s music becomes more beautiful as it becomes more familiar, their maudlin, Mormon message piercing to the bone of even the most jaded big city hipster."

I'm not sure how "practicing" Alan and Mimi are -- and on an aesthetic level, I don't really care -- but I find it interesting that the style of music that Low plays (often labeled "slowcore") is seen as connected to their Mormonism. As part of a Mormon aesthetic. I've listened to some of Low's music, but not enough to know if that's really the case. The band members themselves tend to say that they started playing slow and spare as a reaction against the loud grunge sound (and also to just piss people off -- which they apparently did at some of their early concerts).

This question of "Mormon-ness" is a difficult one. One made even more difficult when it comes to music and visual art that doesn't explicitly feature Mormon cultural materials. I'm tempted to go off on the idea of their sound and reverence, but I don't know their music well enough, and I think that's a dead end idea anyway.

[Tangent]I'm not sure what's up with the use of "maudlin." I don't think the adjective fits their music, but, you know, anything for a sweet use of alliteration, right? Music and film reviewers seem to be especially susceptible to its siren call.[/Tangent]

Low's latest album "The Great Destroyer" was released Jan. 25 by Sub Pop Records. For more on Low, including to listen to samples of their music and purchase albums (plus really cool merchandise), visit Chairkickers Union Music. Low will be touring extensively in support of the new album -- the West Coast swing of their tour takes place in March and April and includes stops in Salt Lake City, Seattle, San Francisco, LA and Phoenix.

POSTSCRIPT: On this day, the day that we mourn Arthur Miller's passing, I think it's only fitting to point out that one of the singles from Low's latest album is titled "Death of a Salesman." You can hear a clip from it at Amazon.com.

Art: 'Redressing American Modernism'

The BYU Museum of Art has put together what looks to be a very interesting exhibit Thoroughly Modern: New Exhibition of Early 20th Century Women Artists (hat tip to Meridian Magazine). The exhibit opens Feb. 25 and features the work "of the women art students of Robert Henri —- widely regarded as the most important American art teacher of the era." And it includes "paintings, prints, drawings, sculpture, textiles and furniture by 31 women artists who studied under Henri from the 1890s through the 1920s."

The major drive behind this exhibit, no doubt, is that Mormon artist Minerva Teichert was one of Henri's students.

What's even more interesteing for me is the accompanying symposium -- Redressing American Modernism: An Interdisciplinary Symposium -- which will be held March 4-5 at BYU.

From the symposium's press release:

"The symposium will be held in conjunction with a new exhibition Thoroughly Modern: The "New Women" Art Students of Robert Henri. The exhibition seeks to challenge the dominant narrative about modern art by examining the work of an unstudied group of modernist artists —- the women students of the American artist and teacher Robert Henri (1865-1929). The exhibited work has hitherto been marginalized by the modernist canon with its emphasis on the purely formalist elements of abstract art. Indeed, many artists have been excluded from the historical account, as this exhibition affirms.

"The symposium will address key issues raised by the "Thoroughly Modern" exhibition and its accompanying publication American Women Modernists: The Legacy of Robert Henri, 1910 – 1945 (Rutgers 2005), an anthology of essays by 7 prominent scholars concerned with the re-contextualizing of American modernism. It is anticipated that these proceedings will contribute significantly to an expanded definition of American modernism and will help to restore a less biased appraisal of the artists, poets, musicians, composers, and writers of this period."

The keynote speaker is Lois Rudnick , professor of English and American Studies, and director of the American Studies program at U. Mass. Boston. I'm not so interested in the papers being presented -- although "Deflowering Flora: Banjos and Modernity in Late Nineteenth-Century American Women's Culture" by Leo Mazow, curator of American Art at the Palmer Museum of Art, sounds intriguing -- but rather the idea of BYU hosting the exhibit and symposium, and the whole project of casting it as an attempt to broaden the definition of American modernism and especially to include more women.

This seems to be part of the phenomenon I discuss in my post The Mormon angle to the Buster brouhaha. Perhaps there's more hope for Mormons-as-ethnic-Americans than I thought.

Idea: First lines for Mormon fiction

I like writing first lines for stories. They aren't 'real' first lines, of course. That is, I don't intend to turn them into stories. They encapsulate, say too much (some of it said in what isn't said). They tend to be glib and even humorous. Think of them as short-short stories but without the story or with a story that you supply. Or something like that. At any rate -- enjoy! And add your own (in the comments section) if reading them causes your own creative juices to stir.

As with all posts in AMV's 'Idea' series, I throw these out in to the Mormon Zeitgeist for the good of all. If for some crazy reason you want to grab one of these lines and create a work of fiction from it, you are free to do so. And if you do -- you should e-mail me about it so I can talk about it here.

First lines for Mormon fiction:

1. Melody was sick of being a 'sweet spirit.'

2. Elder Thatcher's companion strongly believed in the 'baptize 'em all -- let the branch president sort 'em out' school of missionary work.

3. The first thing Charles noticed when he entered the cultural hall was the table heavy-laden with dishes of bubbling funural potatoes, tops crisp and brown with bread crumbs, corn flakes or crushed potato chips, steam curling off them like prayers.

4. The Toole Seventh Ward was the proud owner of the only bishop in the Church who could get away with wearing an earring and full beard (and, yes, the stake president knew about it).

5. It took 12 tries to baptize Lucy, but as with most thing she didn't complain and instead took it as a sign from on high.

6. Thurston Bingsley was truly a man without guile -- unfortunately he didn't have much of anything else either.

7. They carried her kicking and screaming out of the Church Office Building and dumped her ceremoniously on the sidewalk.

8. Gary had long passed the point of being a 'danger to society' and was well on his way to being a full on menace.

9. Bishop Slater took a minute to mull things over but then hastily picked up the phone -- this time Sister Evans had gone to far.

10. "Pack up," said Hyrum to his pregnant wife and six young children. "It's time for the trek back to Missouri."

11. Not many people know this, but, done correctly, scrapbooking is a contact sport.

12. So far as he could tell -- or as far as a Google search could tell -- Jimmy was the first person in the world to crack the secret message hidden among the pages of the July Ensign.

13. "Hey, I like Jello salad," she said. "And flower print dresses with lace collars. And needlepoint versions of the Salt Lake Temple."

14. Mahonri Moriancumer Meeks really wanted to accept the position with the FBI, but he really wished they hadn't made the offer conditional on him changing his name.

News: More on the price of the dark muse

In an interview with the top-tier literary blog Blookslut, Brian Evenson discusses in brief what the dark muse has cost him.

This is the last post I'm going to make in this style -- the previous one was on Neil LaBute -- because I find this theme too depressing and at the same time reductionist. But it would seem that two of the Mormon writers who have had the most success in the big-time literary world have also struggled with their relationships and their status in the LDS Church as a result of their dark art.

And this is not to say that their art isn't worthwhile for a Mormon audience (perhaps more on that later). All I'm saying is that, perhaps there is a price to following the dark muse. Whether that price is the fault of the muse, the writer or the reactions of those who don't like the results, I don't know for sure. Probably all three.

But I do think that idea that these two writers were simply using the via negativa and that there is a moral even LDS-informed core to their work carried more credibility when they weren't so seemingly consumed by that work.

News: Sons of Provo screens in San Francisco

Update 3/4/05: SFist Review (hat tip Times & Seasons).

Excerpt:

"While reviews of Sons of Provo, a mockumentary about a Mormon boy band, compared it to This is Spinal Tap, we found it much more reminiscent of Zoolander. We think this is a good thing - in Spinal Tap, the characters are mainly static and cartoonish, while in Zoolander, and in Provo, the characters, as goofily sataric as they are, have essentialy good hearts and develop as the story progresses."

----
The Mormon pop mockumentary Sons of Provo, directed by Will Swenson, will be screened at the San Francisco Independent Film Festival tonight at 9:45 p.m. at the Castro Theatre and Friday, Feb. 11, at the Roxie (click on the link for show times and to purchase tickets).

There hasn't been much local media coverage of the film. The San Francisco Bay Guardian, a local alt-weekly, ran a brief review as part of its IndieFest round-up. The reviewer writes that Sons of Provo "contains nearly enough faux-earnest energy to excuse the fact that boy-band mockery reached its apex around five years ago."

Matt Forsam has posted a capsule review at SF Station. He gives Sons of Provo three stars (out of five), and writes: "While Swenson is no Christopher Guest, his story of naïve, twentysomething hacks suffering from arrested development strikes a chord."

For those of you who are blessed with the opportunity to live within the walls of Zion, Sons of Provo opens tomorrow in several Utah locations.

News: The Mormon angle to the Buster brouhaha

American public discourse has been atwitter the past week over PBS's decision to not distribute an episode of the children's TV series "Postcards from Buster," that features the animated rabbit Buster visiting a sugar farm in Vermont run by a same-sex couple. Some local stations are choosing to air the episode anyway. According to a San Francisco Chronicle article, the series also includes a visit to a "Mormon family in Utah" and has featured "an Orthodox Jewish family in New York, a Muslim family in Chicago and Pentecostal Christians in North Carolina."

I have no interest in engaging in a debate about whether or not PBS made a good decision or not. I haven't seen the segment.

However, the fact that this series includes a Mormon family raises some interesting issues for how Mormons approach American public disourse -- news, entertainment, education and politics.

In recent years, Mormons have generally allied themselves with the family values movement and the conservative side of the cultural wars. We have even made common cause with Evangelical Christians because of perceived common interests (abortion, same-sex marriage, entertainment standards) and antagonists. It seems like a natural thing for Mormons to do.

The problem with this approach, however, is that we're only useful to so long as we stick to common issues and play by the rules. It seems to me that Evangelicals and even some mainline Protestants are fine with us as long as we don't assert too much of our unique doctrine, history and perspectives. Perhaps the issues are important enough that for us to accept the cultural conventional wisdom that is created by such associations --- Mormons are just like fundamentalist Christians (who aren't really Christian) except they don't drink or smoke and plus there's that whole polygamy thing.

The inclusion of a Mormon family in "Postcards from Buster" suggests an alternative approach. We position ourselves as a unique ethnicity, people, group (whatever term you want to use) that deserves the same type of treatment that other ethnic groups receive -- arts and culture funding, respect and coverage from the media, characters in TV and movies, courses at public universities, festivals, etc.

Granted, this is the approach of liberal activists -- and such activism tends to focus more on race and gender. But at the same time, liberals seem more likely to deal with a population on its own terms and with an emphasis on its uniqueness -- thus why Buster visits Muslim, Orthodox Jewish and Pentecostal families -- albeit always within the overall frame of tolerance and multiculturalism. The downside of this approach, of course, is that it usually means that certain elements of a culture are watered down (see the holiday episode of Sesame Street, for example). Mormons become all about pioneers and Jello -- and more about culture and less about belief, perhaps. The Buster episode should be an interesting test of what the 'libral' story of Mormonism now is (or at least the one that it is acceptable to tell to children).

Of course, the reality is that because Mormons are not a homogeneous group and because we are becoming big enough (and around enough) that those who traffic in (or act as gatekeepers for) public discourse have to deal with us we'll see both approaches taking place.

And I honestly am not sure what I prefer. Or rather I should say that my preference is that we be discussed as uniquely as possible, but that that be driven by those outside of Mormondom just as much as by the efforts of Mormons. I'm also aware that I'm conflating the cultural and the political here, and that may be problematic. But I think I'm pointing at the most widespread and overt ways in which Mormonism bubbles up into public discourse.

Elsewhere: Terryl Givens' Mormon cultural history

Mormon Wasp posted back in October that Mormon studies scholar Terryl Givens has a forthcoming book title Fair as the Moon and Clear as the Sun": A Cultural History of the Mormon People.

Now in his Times & Seasons Q&A, Givens reveals that the project will focus on how "a number of powerful tensions and paradoxes and conflicts in the intellectual universe of Joseph’s mind" influence the cultural production of later MOrmons. Specifically, Give sees "in Mormon culture repeated reflections and refractions of four of these insoluble paradoxes (authority and radical freedom; perfect knowledge and Faustian insatiability; the sacred and the banal; chosenness and alienation)."

My experience is limited to Mormon literature, but at first glance, I'd say that Givens is on to something, and I eagerly await the publication of the book.

In particular it will be interesting to see which specific works Givens draws on to explore these tensions. I also wonder how up-to-date he will try and make the work. Will the recent explosion in Mormon film be represented? How about some of the fine novels and short stories that have appeared in the last 10 years?

A few titles he has to deal with:

Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker series.
The Giant Joshua by Maureen Whipple.
At least one of Orson Whitney's epic poems.
The Backslider by Levi Peterson.

A few I hope he includes:

Nothing very important and other stories by Bela Petsco.
Salavador by Margaret Young.
Angel of the Danube by Alan Rex Mitchell.
Dave Wolverton's Runelords series.