(Administrator note: This guest post by William has been in the queue for a while, so I’m taking the opportunity to post it now. I hope we can use it to continue/restart the flourishing conversation about the future of AML from a couple of weeks ago. I’d like to also put in a plug for related posts like this one and this one over at A Motley Vision. It’s the AML Moment! Or could be.)
I’m delighted by the reaction to Theric’s post about the dormancy of the Association for Mormon Letters. There have been numerous great ideas and responses posted in the comments to the thread, and I don’t want to dampen that discussion, but I do want to expand on my comments on positioning and think about that and organizational structure in a way that’s parallel to all the awesome specific ideas and feedback taking place.
Brief Aside/Full Disclosure/Credential Flouting
Please note that a few times over the past decade (or more), I have advised several people affiliated with AML on marketing, positioning and organizational structure. Some of that advice was implemented. Most of it was not. I’m not angry about this at all. I understand that change is difficult and the last 10 years, in particular, have been hard on organizations, especially those in the humanities. But this time, I’m going to do this out in the open. Because it seems like we’re at that point. And I also could be wrong about things and this is the best way to find that out. That being said: brand positioning is one of the key responsibilities for my day job as a marketing director for a private, non-profit college. I also serve on the marketing committee and helped with the start up of a classical-education-focused charter school (K-12). Which means I have a lot of experience working with non-profit organizations that are trying to figure out where they fit and what they do and how they operate.
Why Positioning
I have a love/hate relationship with words like “positioning” and “mission” and “vision.” But I’m convinced that AML’s struggles aren’t solely about lack of active volunteers or the inability to adapt to a more online world. I think a big part of the issue has been a certain murkiness around the scope of the organization as well as not enough thought about its role in relation to the rest of the cultural side of Mormon Studies. The problem with that is two-fold: 1) you tend focus only on tactics, which means you do whatever is easiest or what you have expertise or comfort in doing; and 2) you don’t present yourself clearly to the rest of the world.
The Givens
No, not Fiona and Terryl. Rather, the underlying assumptions that help us figure out AML’s positioning. I don’t know if you all will agree with all them. If not, speak up in the comments. But these are the factors I’m operating with as I think about what the AML should be.
1. The AML needs to appeal to both writers and critics. Because a) there’s not enough of one or the other to do much, b) this is what it has historically been, c) it’s what none of the other existing organizations do, and d) minority literatures tend to flower when authors write work that elicits good criticism and good criticism invigorates authors. The AML is an ongoing literary conversation.
2. The AML is not for writers, artists or critics who happen to be Mormon. It fits within Mormon Studies, and its primary focus should be work that speaks directly (in some way) to the Mormon experience.
3. The AML should continue to attempt to attract both professional and amateur (however you want to define those descriptors) writers and critics. And by critics, we mean not just literary critics with academic appointments, but also reviewers and engaged readers.
4. The AML should focus on narrative art aka literature. That means: fiction, creative nonfiction, poetry, film and drama. While an umbrella Mormon arts (including visual and performing) organization would be lovely, that requires resources that those interested in reviving the AML cannot marshal at this point in time.
5. The AML needs to have an organizational structure that is not bound by time or distance, is modular (meaning it has discrete projects that are self-sustaining), is low cost, can maintain continuity, and is focused on creating things.
6. While the AML needs some funding, in the short term it should primarily focus on offerings that are free. You can’t raise funds without a membership/donor base. Restoring active participation is the major priority.
7. The AML will only thrive if it can both carve out its own space and also interact (with varying degrees of intensity) with other more focused organizations. It’s not going to replace Segullah or LDStorymakers or Dialogue or LTUE or the Western Literature Association. Rather, it should augment, draw on, share talent with and create programing for (as appropriate) and provide additional opportunities for and publicity for other organizations where they intersect with AML’s focus on Mormon narrative art. This could happen in many forms. The point is that it should happen.
8. While the AML right now needs to be primarily focused on online activities, it should also work towards activities where its members can meet face-to-face as well as products that can be acquired and cataloged (note that this could include ebooks — it doesn’t just mean paper). This helps strengthen the community and ensures that some of what it produces is preserved for future generations.
9. Initial AML projects should be things that don’t require a huge investment of time but can still have immediate impact. A steady output of smaller work is preferable to intermittent large work. That could mean, for example, that Irreantum becomes a twice or thrice a year online journal with rotating issue editors that only focuses on creative work and only published 3-4 pieces.
Suggested Positioning
I think the Association for Mormon Letters should seek to be the central gathering place for discussion about narrative art that is about Mormonism and the Mormon experience. This is a slight narrowing on the “by, for or about Mormons” that it previously defined as its scope. But I think the “by Mormons” made things too mushy. This doesn’t, of course, mean that only works that overtly feature Mormon characters are eligible. But that the conversation the AML focuses on always has a dimension to it that is identifiably, even uniquely, Mormon.
I’m not sure how to turn that into a mission statement
Organizational Structure
This draws on work that I did for the AML several years ago (note that the linked document doesn’t have all the analysis and context that justified it). What I suggest at the moment is something much more scaled down.
The Board should be a working board. That means board members should be assigned to specific responsibilities/projects rather than simply being a board member. This means that being a board member shouldn’t lead to too much extra work beyond their primary assignment. Meetings should be no more often than quarterly and conducted virtually. Meetings should have a specific agenda and be focused on decision making (with some discussion — although discussion can be a major trap for a board).
Sidenote: I believe in order for AML to maintain its non-profit status, there needs to be a board. I’m not sure on what all is necessary legally in terms of governance.
At the minimum the board should have a board chair, a board member who is focused on the critics, a board member who is focused on the authors, a board member who is focused on core online activity (website, blog, social media), and a board member who is focused on funding/membership/publicity. Those could be broken down further if needed. And, more importantly, each board member should primarily be looking to build a team of people to help with whatever projects they are responsible for and in so doing also be training and cultivating their own replacements.
That’s it. There’s a lot more detail I could add. But the above is how I think the AML could re-invent itself while staying true to its history. And I think many of the specific projects already proposed could fit within this structure.
Hi William,
Thanks for the intellectual work on this. I think it gives a good starting-point. I especially like #5, #7, and #8.
Some other specific reactions:
– For #3, I would add personal essays as a genre that is of central interest (though perhaps you consider that as being part of creative nonfiction). I would also quibble with “narrative” in that I think most modern poetry isn’t a particularly narrative genre, but that’s a purely editorial comment and not a substantive one.
– I’m not sure about giving board members responsibility for specific areas, although I think it’s a good idea to have them (at least informally) representing various constituencies. Instead, I think people can be appointed to head up particular initiatives who then report to the board as a whole without necessarily being a part of it. The AML contest coordinator is one such activity. I’d hate to add another layer of administration to things. However, I admit that all this is still fuzzy in my mind and would vary highly depending on who was in various positions and which initiatives AML continues.
– #2 is, I think, certainly the most potentially controversial item on the list. I think I mostly agree with it, but with some explanation/caveats:
— There are some general questions relating to how one can be a literary artist and a Mormon, and how literary art relates to the Mormon worldview, that are of interest to Mormon writers and readers regardless of whether the works in question address the Mormon experience. I would hope that AML can continue to host discussions like that.
— While I think it makes the most sense for AML to promote works that describe the Mormon experience (e.g., in its awards and publications), I think the critical conversation should also include discussion of how, for example, works by Mormon writers that don’t ever explicitly mention Mormonism may feature Mormon themes.
— I also think it makes sense for AML to be a kind of literary bazaar or clearinghouse where people can find out more about what’s going on in the world of Mormon letters broadly defined. At the moment, our most important endeavor in that connection is probably Andrew Hall’s periodic reviews. I also think that the reviews organized by Jeff Needle include works by Mormons that aren’t particularly about the Mormon experience. I envision other similar future projects AML could sponsor — perhaps not as a central part of our mission, but as an important element nonetheless (and one that for the most part, no one else is doing).
Reactions to the reactions:
–Creative nonfiction is generally synonymous with personal essay. I’m using it that way but I use creative nonfiction specifically because some reportage and sermons, etc. could also be suitable. All poetry is narrative — it (with very few exceptions) has a beginning, middle and end.
–What’s the point of board members who aren’t doing anything? That’s how the AML got into trouble before. An engaged board is crucial to a well-run nonprofit, esp. a small one like the AML. If at some point the AML is large enough to have functioning committees with board members assigned to lead/assist each committee then that will be great, but that’s a long way off — and may not be a workable structure.
–I wouldn’t limit any specific work. But the point is, the AML should be where the conversation about the work discusses Mormonism. Otherwise, there are other venues better suited for such conversation. I don’t think that this is something that should be vigorously policed, especially in informal expressions like blog comments. But I do think it should be the way the AML positions itself and what will make that work is if there are multiple ways to enter the conversation and a commitment to engaging with new voices. For all that it was an lively, excellent conversation, the AML could sometimes be quite daunting for new folks.
William, this is a treasure. I’m ready to use it as a blueprint going forward.
Of course, there could be tweaks. I’m with Jonathan on being mostly on board with #2 as something that at the least defines the AML’s main focus. But it’s hard for me not to want to add the word “indirectly” there. Or even “sometimes indirectly,” as in, “The AML is not for writers, artists or critics who happen to be Mormon. It fits within Mormon Studies, and its primary focus should be work that speaks directly [or even sometimes indirectly] (in some way) to the Mormon experience.”
I think this encompasses some of what Jonathan was saying about general literary questions from a Mormon perspective, and how there may be works that don’t fall neatly under the Mormon Studies umbrella but somehow achieve a connection to or resonance with the Mormon experience.
But I agree this is small beans and we shouldn’t spend much time agonizing over it. I am all in with your positioning and reasoning. And maybe the “by, for, and about Mormons” language just needs to be dropped. “For” seems a little dicey as well. Certainly it is accurate in a literal sense, but also could maybe put up a curtain to people who don’t know any better, or may be coming to AML for the first time (you must be Mormon to look behind here, for Mormons only).
You do say: “But that the conversation the AML focuses on always has a dimension to it that is identifiably, even uniquely, Mormon.” And that seems to capture things pretty well.
Thanks for sharing this. Also, have you considered what kind of role you might want to step into?
From my perspective, this looks like an organizational shift from my writing being included to my writing being mostly excluded from the field of Mormon letters. Also excluded: most of Orson Scott Card’s, Brandon Sanderson’s, and pretty much every other nationally bestselling LDS author’s work.
If that’s the intention, then I guess the policy works as designed. If that’s not the intention, then perhaps it needs to be reworded.
I didn’t read it that way, but I for one don’t want to exclude your works.
After having dug into the reviews database and Jeff Needle’s reviews on the discussion board (which is down at the moment), the selection is so vast and esoteric it’s mind-bogglingly wonderful.
I can’t imagine anybody would want to exclude your and the other authors’ works.
I’ll admit to having a similar concerns as Eric’s.
That may be because the Science Fiction field also has this same perennial argument as to what exactly constitutes “science fiction” and we’ve gone down this road before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_science_fiction
The above list, however, doesn’t list my personal favorite definition which I think I first heard from the late Algis Budrys. Admittedly, it’s a negative definition, a definition of what SF is _not_: “If you take out the Science and the story still works, then it is not Science Fiction.”
Perhaps a negative definition of #MormonLit might work similarly: “If you take out the Mormon world view and the story still works, then it is not Mormon Literature.”
This approach, I think, might solve or at least allay Eric’s concern. Such a definition would including my overt and non-overt stories I consider #MormonLit while passing on my stories that have no real Mormon connection.
I don’t think that even needs to be that precise, Lee. If one can find an interesting Mormon angle with which to discuss the work, then it fits. One would assume that that means there is something Mormon in the work itself, but Mormons are also good at creative, Mormon-centric misreadings.
“But Mormons are also good at creative, Mormon-centric misreadings”
I think this is mainly why I am on board with #2. I think most of what we label a”Mormon” theme is often simply a “universal” theme we like to claim as our own. A lot of Terryl Givens work/writing recently has shown, for example, that themes we tend to think of as “Mormon” are quite evident and abundant in works by those with no connection to Mormonism. If we think of the Restoration as a gathering of existing truths rather than a restoration of new or utterly lost knowledge, it becomes clear why so-called “Mormon” themes pop up frequently in non-Mormon works.
That’s not to say that I don’t think Mormon elements or attitudes can be discerned in a non-overtly Mormon work; rather, I’m saying that those kinds of observations often don’t add up to much.
In terms of science fiction and AML, it could be that the association should work at promoting science fiction that engages overt Mormon content. There are plenty of other organizations for cater to work that doesn’t.
“I’m saying that those kinds of observations often don’t add up to much.”
Prove it.
Or to put it in a less confrontational way: I understand your argument in the abstract, but my actual experience with reading SF&F by Mormon authors and analysis of that SF&F leads me to disagree with making any sweeping conclusions. I think the jury is still out and that the AML should be encouraging work that tests your theory.
I should point out that I qualified my claim with an “often”–meaning “sometimes” we see this sort of work done well.
I think my hesitation here is with studies that assume X about a Mormon-authored work because Mormons teach Y or talk about Z, when plenty of other groups also teach and talk and speculate about Y and Z without any connection to Mormonism. I think we need to be careful and not assume that a work is inspired thematically by Mormonism when the real source–if such a thing can be identified–is something entirely different. Of course, I’m mostly just not convinced that there is a storehouse of uniquely Mormon themes. A lot of what we claim as Mormonism has traces in the Bible and classical literature. Givens, for example, is constantly citing Romantic sources that express ideas that we might, in a different context, identify as thematically Mormon.
That said, I think there is room for studies that look at SF&F works by Mormon authors as possible commentaries on cultural developments within Mormonism–such as your excellent review of Condie’s Matched trilogy, which looks at the work from the context of correlation. Such studies, though, need to be well-informed, well-researched, and well-supported.
Joe:
I see work that speaks thematically or structurally/formally to Mormonism as falling under the category of “speaking directly”. A work need not have Mormon characters for it to be suitable for discussion, and there’s a whole body of AML proceedings/blog/email discussions that shows this.
Eric:
When your work thematically or speaks to Mormonism, then it is of primary concern to the AML (as I see it). When it doesn’t, it isn’t, and fits more within the overlapping but adjacent field of speculative fiction studies. I would note that I’ve specifically pointed out over the years where work by OSC and Brandon Sanderson thematically speaks to my Mormonism even when such work doesn’t have overt Mormon elements on the character/setting level.
But just because a work is by a Mormon, doesn’t automatically mean that there’s going to be something interesting to say about it in relation to Mormonism. Of course, good critics can find an interesting, relevant slant on almost anything.
Wm: Point taken. Sounds good.
Joe:
I really have no idea. I have a wide variety of skills and interests. It might be best for me to punt for now and see where there’s a need/gap once things settle out.
So I have a question for EJS and Lee and other fiction writers that don’t always/often write work that’s overtly Mormon: what sort of engagement would you be looking to have with a re-booted AML and/or what is it that you have found/currently find/hope to find via the AML that you can’t/don’t from other organizations?
I’d like to reverse the question: What exclusions would you want to put in place based on this criteria? Possibilities:
– Not considering for the AML awards works without a specific Mormon tie-in
– Not publishing works without a specific Mormon tie-in (i.e., if Irreantum or a successor gets put back in place)
– Not providing slots at the AML conference dedicated to criticism of works by Mormon authors unless a Mormon tie-in is included
– Limiting informal discussion of works by Mormons (e.g., on the blog) to those where a Mormon tie-in is discussed
– Not sponsoring reviews of works by Mormons without a specific literary tie-in
– Not acting as a clearinghouse for news about publications by Mormons without specific literary tie-ins (e.g., through Andrew Hall’s work, guest posts and interviews on the AML blog, etc.)
– Limiting activities and discussions of the craft of writing (e.g., on the AML blog, and writing conferences if those start up again) to writers who create work with direct Mormon tie-ins.
As I mentioned in another comment, I think the first 3 of these are perfectly reasonable and pretty much understood at present. The others would represent a narrowing of current or past practice, and would I think be a mistake for the organization. Would we really not want to interview or talk about the work of Jamie Ford? Would we not want to celebrate the successes of Brandon Sanderson and his involvement in the community of Mormon writers?
This brings me to one of the problems I have with positioning statements: inevitably they exclude, even if and when that’s not intended. Heck, even *I’m* feeling a little excluded by parts of this discussion. If part of the purpose of a positioning statement is to bring people into AML, a good place to start is not by chasing off people who have already been a part of it. Intent, in this case, is less important than perception.
And for what gain? When it comes down to brass tacks, I cannot see how AML’s more inclusive past efforts in the areas listed above (as comprehensive a list as I can make it) have seriously pulled time and energy away from other areas, or driven away people who would otherwise have participated. I seriously doubt, for instance, that we would have more reviews of Mormon-content literature if we stopped reviewing works by Mormons without Mormon content. Or more readers of reviews, for that matter.
You asked what writers such as EJS and Lee would want from a rebooted AML. Speaking only for myself, I would say: a place at a larger table of conversation about what literature means for Mormons, both as readers and as writers of it. A sense of community that transcends genre but that embraces our religious identity. A recognition that science fiction and fantasy by Mormon writers is inherently a Mormon literary genre, even if I can’t always articulate and readers may not perceive the ways that my writing reflects my Mormonness. In light of what seem to me the clear benefits of such inclusiveness, I think the burden is on those who are pushing for exclusion to demonstrate more clearly how giving us what we want will somehow damage the organization.
The problem with that approach, Jonathan, is that why it’s very reasonable, it doesn’t really help us prioritize. And it looks a lot like what the AML was already doing. If the AML can do all that it was doing but do it well with a few tweaks and sustain that, then great. But I’m not convinced that it can.
I think it’s the need for prioritizing that I’m trying to examine more closely.
Prioritizing, I submit, applies when:
a There is a finite set of resources to be dedicated
b. Resources are freely transferable from one category to another
c. Added investment is not expected to yield greater future resources
I think that (b) in particular is questionable where AML is concerned.
The argument that whatever AML has done in the past has clearly not worked is a powerful one. But I have yet to be convinced that lack of focus has been a root cause, mostly because I haven’t seen resources that could have been devoted in one area that instead were devoted to less important areas.
The notion that AML may need a clearer message in order to attract more future attention has some credibility, although in my experience what tends to attract people is less a clear message statement than simply seeing something interesting and energetic that’s going on.
Here’s a version of statement #2 that I would buy into:
AML represents both a subset of Mormon studies and a broad-based community of those with an interest in how Mormonism and literature intersect. Its primary focus should be on zones of contact between writing and literature and the Mormon experience.
AML to me is where the discussion of Mormon letters is just as rooted in the Gospel as it is in literary scholarship. An AML of if not Shakespeares and Miltons then at least Eugene Englands and Richard Craycrofts and Margaret Youngs and Darius Greys.
I work all day on commercial genre fiction. LDS Storytellers is where I would go to talk about the commercial merits of LDS fiction, LDS book markets, and of Mormon writers. LTUE is where I would go to talk about the genre-specific merits of Mormon-written genre fiction.
AML is where I can chuck workday constraints of commerciality and genre and talk purely of literary merits of Mormon Letters, a discussion informed as by both scholarship and Gospel tenants.
My only concern with genre fiction vis-à-vis AML is that the genre label not be an automatic disqualifier for inclusion in AML discussions, nor that genre stories get shunted off into some separate discussion track, but that stories get judged on the same story-by-story basis with writing quality and Mormon issues/themes being the deciding factor, just as they are with literary mainstream fiction. I consider Eric James Stone’s That Leviathan, Whom Thou Hast Made” to be as crucial to the discussion of modern Mormon Letters as Levi Peterson’s THE BACKSLIDER.
What engagement would I like with AML 2.0? The same engagement I had with AML 1.0 (and associated venues such as Richard Craycroft’s BYU Colloquium on Literature and Beliefs). A list of my selected presented papers, IRREANTUM essays, and AMV guest posts:
• “On Moral Fiction: The Gardnerian Ideal and the Mormon Poetic”
• “The Individual Vs. The Zion Community: An Empirical Look At The Dichotomy In Mormon SF”
• “Though the Universe Shakes You: The Mantic, The Writer, and The Trail of Dreams”
• “Camelot, Arthur, and Nauvoo: Michael Collings’ Taliesin”
• “Projecting the Other: The ‘Mormon Question’ in Turtledove’s How Few Remain”
• “‘Nietzsche Was Right’ and Other Pitfalls in Depicting Evil in Fiction”
• “In(to) the Void and Back Again: Organizing the Universe and the Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror Poetry of Michael R. Collings”
• “Lewis Horne’s Bimetrical Pinwheel”
That list also illustrates my last expectation: that AML be a place of fellowship where both academically trained scholars and untrained-but-well-meaning-and-enthusiastic dilettantes both have a place.
Wm,
Mainly, it’s that the previous “by, for or about Mormons” made me feel like my work was included in the field of Mormon literature, while the new wording makes me feel like most of it is excluded, even though there are obvious Mormon influences on many of my stories that do not directly address the Mormon experience.
But it’s not just about me as an author. One of the things that often pulled me back to reading the AML bloog was Andrew Hall’s posts about new books from Mormon authors, and how they’re doing on the bestseller lists, etc. Under the new focus, most of those books would no longer be considered within the purview of AML, and thus the likelihood of my returning to the AML blog is lessened because it is less useful to me.
It seems to me that there is a tradeoff between the gains AML might make by becoming more focused in what it considers to be Mormon letters and the losses due to disengagement by people whose primary interests lie outside the new focus. The Powers That Will Be at AML may decide that tradeoff is worthwhile. I’m just making sure you know there is a tradeoff.
Bibliographic work is important to the field, and for that I complete agree with the “by Mormons” metric. I’m not suggesting that Andrew not continue to do what he is doing. But that’s one blog post every week or so. The AML can’t sustain itself on that.
What would get you to attend events or submit work that you’ve written?
Hence my suggestion that the “is not for” language of #2 as originally drafted needs to be modified, and that some recognition should be given of a big tent/bazaar mission for at least some of AML’s projects–along with acknowledging its special focus on literature that intersects with the Mormon experience.
After having thought about this for the last couple of days or so, and having maintained all along that I don’t write “for” Mormons at all, I’ve become a little leery of the prepositions, too.
My mission all along has been to a) not let outsiders define us to the world, to define ourselves, b) explain our culture to a country that largely finds us a cult at worst and exotic at best, c) get our jargon out there so that it can grow into the wider religious lexicon that most of us are familiar with.
“Two out of three ain’t bad.” –Meatloaf
When/If Mormons (active, inactive, ex, former, questioning, doubting, and jack) find my work worthwhile (of which I have ample evidence) that’s gravy. It wasn’t my intent, but I’m glad that I’ve helped people.
Comment will be short BC I’m stuck using my phone. 1st, thank you, Wm., for thus post.
I agree w Joe that we really need to PUSH AML as a Significant, even vital, part of Mormon Studies. Both the artistic side and critical sides. There have been rumors that the boards at the two publications that publish some Mormon literary art may be considering dropping it. There seems to be an undercurrent within the community that MoLit is dispensable. AML should, IMO, wage a campaign to promote MoLit and criticism as important to Mormon Studies as History or anything else.
I wonder if the digital whatever that is put together could both publish a piece of fiction or poetry and, at the same time, a critical analysis of that piece. I think that pairing might be both instructive and enlightening. Just a thought.
And I agree that board members should have specific responsibilities.
I second Lisa’s second paragraph.
Mormon literature is important to Mormon Studies because literature is important to the cultural and historical studies of any group not because it can be related to History or Theology. Show me any “Adjective Studies” field that has gotten traction in academia and the broader cultural sphere without literature.
Modern Greek Studies? Jewish Studies? Women’s Studies? Chicano Studies? GLBT Studies?
Some of the top scholars in each of those fields are literary critics and a good chunk of the programming that takes place features creators and critics from the world of narrative art.
At the risk of undermining the entire point of a positioning statement/focus, I’d suggest that this can and even should be drawn differently for different AML projects/endeavors. This, I think, is feasible because to a great degree, AML is not a single product (and maybe not even a single brand), but rather a collection of products/activities. While we want a fertile cross-pollination and central core, it’s not essential that those with an interest in the blog also care about the conference, or the journal, or the awards.
For example, as I suggested above, I think it’s reasonable that the AML awards should focus on works that address Mormon experience in some way — though I agree with William that this doesn’t need to be via explicitly Mormon characters. I would also say that if AML continues with direct publishing of literature in some format, this is a reasonable focus, though I’d like to see more diversity in genre and style than what I believe we saw in the last few years of Irreantum.
For critical activities such as AML papers, I think there should be a Mormon connection somewhere. However, that connection can be mostly supplied by the critic, rather than explicit within the work.
For activities like the blog, Andrew Hall’s Mormon Lit news, etc., I want a broader focus, as I’ve indicated above: more of a bazaar approach. For how this fits within a Mormon studies context, I would suggest that (a) it provides the necessary groundwork for analysis of common themes and concerns among Mormon writers that may not be obvious, and (b) it addresses the phenomenon of Mormons who happen to be writers. A little less glibly, I think that it supports something that is *not* provided anywhere else: that is, a community where the only essential common threads are our Mormonness and our interest in talking about literature and/or writing from a perspective that incorporates that identity.
I also think a broader perspective is important if we decide to incorporate projects specifically to support writers, such as a writer’s conference. This is actually the area I’m fuzziest about, because I’m not honestly sure what AML can reasonably do with respect to support for writers. I do think, however, that there’s a danger such activities could become focused on literary fiction (as opposed to other genres) more or less by default.
First off, as some one who has only been peripherally involved in the past, but who is invested in a revived AML, I am grateful for the work and vision that went into this document, and endorse it generally as a way forward.
Speaking to some of William’s first points, I believe that when the board is comprised, crafting a mission and vision statement for AML should be a high priority.
Speaking to #9-I agree whole heartedly that regular smaller work is preferable to intermittent longer work. But feel that even in the short term producing work more regularly than 2 or 3 times a year is crucial. As you said in #6, “Restoring active participation is the major priority.” The Mormon Interpreter has been a successful example of an online journal launch. They release a new article once a week. And compile them into an e-book after the fact. This is helping them develop a regular audience, and is increasing their social media reach. I feel that fragmenting whatever AML is producing into the smallest possible unit to increase regularity is the best way to restore active participation.
To contribute to the conversation on #2, I think it’s very functional as written, and allows for a broad spectrum of conversations that to me all belong in AML. But I think that much of the work of Eric, Card, and Sanderson belongs, to the extent that we’re discussing the way it interacts with the Mormon experience. What does it reveal, or how does it comment on the experience of Mormonism? I feel those works can be mined extensively with those kinds of questions in mind. But I don’t think AML is the place to discuss those authors’ works in more general ways. Perhaps it would be clearer to say “intersects with the mormon experience” as opposed to “speaks directly to the mormon experience.” Of course my language may also prove overly broad.
I like the word intersect.
Responding here to Scott’s follow-up re: criticism of sf&f works by Mormon authors from Mormon perspectives (since the comments were getting too deeply embedded to easily follow):
I agree that there are relatively few uniquely Mormon themes. However, some of those shared themes have particular resonances within Mormon thought (and culture) that can prove illuminating in discussing works by Mormon writers. Some specifics that I’ve either written about or thought about writing about include the following:
– Fathers, sons, proxy inheritance, and choice of heritage in Dave Wolverton’s Serpent Catch and Path of the Hero
– The “endowment” system in Dave Farland’s Runelords series as reflecting Mormon critiques of capitalism and ideals of consecration
– Orson Scott Card’s character of Abner Doon as reflecting the ambivalent Mormon view of the role of Satan
– Card’s “The Worthing Chronicle” as a meditation on particularly Mormon ideas about free will and the responsibility that comes with becoming a god
– Card’s alternate history in the Alvin Maker books as a variation on the theme of Mormon ideas about the inspired founding of America
Even in cases where there’s no particularly Mormon spin, the fact remains nonetheless that for a Mormon writer, the Mormon context is in fact likely to be the “real source” in which an idea was conceived. Conflicts about chastity and sexuality are certainly common to many religious traditions, but I think any critic who tried to look at the work of Stephenie Meyer without looking at key Mormon cultural documents would at least be missing a bet.
It’s also possible to miss things by looking at ideas within a too generically non-Mormon context. This is something I point out in my review of Michael Collings’s groundbreaking study of Orson Scott Card’s work, In the Image of God. Collings talks about Card’s heroes in terms of traditional Christ-figures, but (in my view) misses the fact that in some respects these characters represent a better match to the role of a prophet, especially as understood by Mormons.
Obviously, it’s up to the critic to make the argument and up to readers to determine whether they find it convincing. And in many instances, as I indicated, the case still remains to be made. But there’s a lot there to mine.
In any event, I think everyone would agree that discussion of this sort is part of what AML should foster going forward, by any definition.
I don’t think I disagree with anything you say here, Jonathan. As I’ve thought about this issue today, my main concern has been for the quality of the criticism. I also think its important that critics take into consideration that Mormon writers are as much products of their Mormonism as they are of other cultural influences. They should proceed carefully and not jump immediately to the apparent Mormonness of a text, but rather pause to consider the possibility of other influences or sources on the text. I think, perhaps, that it might be more fruitful to talk about ways possible Mormon influences mesh with non-Mormon influences.
Amen to that.
Being my usual fly in the ointment:
The conversation, as usual, heads into SF&F and stays there. It’s annoying to the point of cliché.
Not to lessen the aforementioned authors’ work, but really. Unless, of course, there is a disproportionate amount of work being done (or published) in SF&F by LDS-ish writers. Are any of those women?
So speaking of women and revamping, how many of the blog regulars have noticed that the women pretty much left the blogspace here? Did they leave AML too? Did they go to Storymakers or did they throw their hands up?
I’ve tried hard to get more women to post on the blog. Most of those who used to contribute have said they don’t have the time right now. (Also true for many past male blog contributors.)
The reason you get talk about sf&f here is that for the most part, those still participating in AML are either writers of contemporary realistic/literary fiction or sf&f. I’d love to have people pointing out how to extend the conversation to writers of romance, mystery, etc. And I’ve tried to reach out to them. And I’ll continue to do so. In any event, I think the same issues pertain to those areas as pertain to sf&f — and, for that matter, to literary fiction written by Mormons but not about Mormon subjects (e.g., Jamie Ford). But those aren’t categories I’m as familiar with, so I can’t pull in examples from there.
I feel like the same kind of questions about the influence of Mormonism on writers that we can apply to Card or Sanderson in SF&F can be applied to Anne Perry or Brenda Novak in Romance and Historical Fiction. The genre doesn’t seem particularly relevant to me.
As for Anne Perry, she helped murder her BFF’s mother, so I personally object to her making money off fictional murder. Write what you know? My mother’s a fan of hers (“she repented!”), and even she says Perry’s work is getting darker. I have reason to believe not much of Mormonism at work there. (Tathea excepted, but it was a hot mess and I couldn’t get through the second half.)
I haven’t read Novak, so I couldn’t say. I’ve got Carla Kelly on my TBR, but she’s also written a specific Mormon-themed historical novel.
But this goes to (I think Jonathan’s) point: I write explicit Mormon characters, but not in 1780 for obvious reasons. I would never expect my pirate novel to be examined for Mormon-ish content. My heroine’s a Catholic Scot and my hero’s technically Anglican. There are ZERO things Mormon about it. There is pirate culture, Georgian London culture, Royal Navy culture, but no Mormon. What could be gleaned as Mormon is simply being human.
No, I wouldn’t expect that examination. Nor would I expect it in the three WIPs I have in progress at the moment.
I think Scott’s right in that not everything a Mormon writes is about Mormonism or has Mormon influences that aren’t universal to the human condition. We, as a culture, have appropriated Victorian morés as if we invented them when we didn’t start out that way at all. Furthermore, I am strongly convinced that our culture of “no beards,” “suits,” and basically “looking respectable” (for men) and “modest” for the women is straight out of 1950s upper middle class country club.
After writing *about* LDS culture for a non-LDS audience, I would venture to say that about 80% of our current culture is not new. It’s just so old-fashioned we don’t recognize it for what it is.
Since I can’t speak to Sanderson directly (although what I’ve seen of Card can be examined under an LDS-ish lens and come out with a more-LDSish-than-not), and I can’t speak to Perry or Novak or Kelly’s non-LDSish Harlequins, I can speak to my own work and say, “This is LDS/ish. This is most definitely not.”
What I think might be useful are discussions (not official labeling or anything) about specific works and what is and is not LDSish about them or what is a more universally themed work we are reading as LDSish for whatever reason.
Of course, in other areas of the internet, this is called “fanwanking.”
You’re making sense, Elizabeth. Believe me, as one living under the thumb of a BYU honor code, I get the whole country club thing. Alas.
Also, just spent ten minutes reading about Anne Perry. Had no idea. And, wow.
The number of female LDS authors of YA and middle grade fiction, especially in the SF&F genre, is huge, for whatever that bit of information may be worth.
Lee Allred thanks for that comment. I don’t think anyone would object to the idea that market and genre should in no way limit AML’s focus, but also that they aren’t the measuring stick for what gets talked about. Now about that measuring stick . . .
I could be overly optimistic here, but I feel like if we made a Venn diagram of this comment section, the overlapping part would be way huge, with only slivers of non-overlapping circles where we disagree about mostly smaller, non-deal-breaking matters.
But the it feels fair to say that most of us are comfortable with the bulk of William’s outline, and even with the idea that AML’s main focus should be works of narrative art that intersect in some way with the Mormon experience. Priority for awards, publications, and presentations will be given to works that more directly address or shed light on the Mormon experience, while the blog, reviews, social media, etc. will continue to be broader in their discussion of Mormon-related arts, artists, and issues.
All writers and all genres have a seat at the table. Speaking of which, AML should continue to make a concerted effort to address and include the work being done by women, as well as LDS authors in the international community (I know this is part of Margaret Young’s vision for the future). Here at BYU-Hawaii, I may be in a position to help locate and highlight some of these emerging writers in different parts of the world.
How does this sound, particularly paragraph 3? Is it agreeable for the most part?
I don’t think there needs to be an absolute consensus for things to move forward with hope for the future and an open invitation to anyone and everyone who feels invested and interested in Mormon literature and the ways it addresses and and expands upon the Mormon (and just plain human, Scott, to be sure) experience.
.
“BY FOR AND ABOUT” has long been the standard for AML—since its inception as I understand it—and should stay.
What most of our energy goes toward talking about may change–may wax for while waning about, perhaps—but all-inclusiveness of a field neither insists upon nor denigrates a focus of conversation.
I like the worth-having-a-conversation-about metric or I-have-something-to-say-about this metric that was being bounced about a couple weeks ago, because it doesn’t narrow the field while greatly narrowing the focus—at least in that moment. And besides, big-tent AML is the only AML I think any of us have ever known or cared for.
I can’t imagine an AML that doesn’t care about what Eric’s doing, for instance, even if it happens not to be much of what we’re currently talking about.
It feels to me like those three prepositions were always in tension and shifting the focus of the organization hither and yon, which led to some of the attenuation that got us where we’re at now.
Then again, definitional discussion is endemic to all fields so I’m not really interested in fighting against it so much as claiming that the “about” needs to be the thing where the energies are primarily directed. And my hope is that all Mormons will begin to see themselves and their concerns and experience as worthy of well-crafted narrative art and as something to take pride in.
.
While by or for or about is auspices of the AML, it seems natural then that by AND for AND about is dead center AML. The more it is more of those three things, the more interesting the work is to the AML. So something by a Mormon but neither for or about Mormons is interesting to the AML, yes, but something by a Mormon that is also for or about Mormons is even more interesting. Ultimately, I think the by/about combo is the most interesting from an AML perspective, but I did just write a multipost series on Shannon Hale’s Dangerous which is really by-only. So I’m leery of any phrasings that would make her (or Eric) feel excluded.
Current AML address (which would have been available on the AML website, except that it was hacked and our server shut it down):
AML
105 south State # 114
Orem Ut 84058
Glenn Gordon picks up mail from this address