Robert Arlt is a famous practitioner of this style — he called his “Aguafuertes.”

It’s also a form that’s related to the concept of the flâneur

I now regret that I didn’t produce any of this sort of thing (or at least the notes for them) while on my mission. I only wrote in my journal twice on my mission and both times were to record happenings/meetings that would fit well into this literary form; whereas, they wouldn’t have made very good anecdotes.

I would be fascinated to know if that was the source of the custom of using anecdotes in talks.

Of course, its also really not any different than the use of anecdotes that we see in speeches outside of Mormonism. I don’t think we’ve seen too many political speeches this year that didn’t include some kind of anecdote about a constituent somewhere who did or experienced something that illustrates the point the politician wants to make.

So, I’ll bet there is a broader change in the development of discourse in English (or perhaps even elsewhere or even centuries ago, for all I know) that led to the use of anecdotes in speeches.

The thing is, I think its kind of on the line between literature and idea — perhaps hybrid is a good way of looking at it. Each retelling is, I think, what the copyright law calls a “derivative work” (other derivative works are translations, screen or stage adaptations, etc.) Are such “derivative works” really a different work of literature?

If they are, then each retelling of an anecdote is a separate work, that should be considered separately.

If not, then there is some meta form of the story (like objects in Plato’s cave, I suppose) that represents the actual literature, and everything else is just a derivation of the original.

Probably both ideas are correct, leaving us with no clear answer at all!

It’s been long enough that hardly any living person would remember that church-wide training, but I wonder if that isn’t how this pattern you noticed became so established in our culture?

(This is me talking off the top of my first impressions, so please forgive my rambling.)

It seems to me the “anecdote” (remember those varicolored books Especially for Mormons that were popular when I was a teenager?) as we hear it in General Conference (and re-hear it and re-hear it and re-hear it) is simply oral tradition in action. There is a moral embedded somewhere in the story that, even if you don’t hear it on first telling, you might hear it on some repeat telling down the line. Then you pass that on. That they are written down does not, IMO, make them “literature,” precisely, but some hybrid, maybe? I personally don’t see such things as literature, even when I’m reading them; I hear them.

You know, storytime around the campfire.