And I agree with this: “Depth is when a character is shown to have a bedrock of morals and goodness underneath their obvious flaws.”

Most of the modern Mormon literary fiction that has been written actually falls into this category. Where the disagreements tend to be, then, is what kinds of flaws and how they are revealed and how much of the bedrock shows (and how) and what exactly pushing the envelope means.

Which is why we need more good Mormon literary criticism that look closely at specific works — and especially from a more orthodox perspective.

Works that “push the envelope” by depicting Mormons as “human” and “not perfect” is not depth.

Depth is when a character is shown to have a bedrock of morals and goodness underneath their obvious flaws. That is what the “human condition” is about. The contrast between Mosiah 2:25 and Psalm 8.

Maybe that’s what people here mean when they talk about adding flaws to their characters, but all too often I find that comments like that just lead to replacing positive stereotypes with negative stereotypes that are considered more “real” because they aren’t idealistic. As if ideals have no basis in reality.

Maybe 10% of Mormons have even heard of that and much fewer give it any credence,

If the online response to Eugene’s book is anything to go by, maybe 10% of Mormons know ANYTHING about vampire lore. Certainly the overwhelming response I saw was, “No, I DIDN’T know vampire was synonymous with unexpressable female sexuality.”

With the subtext being: “And it’s totally not true anyway because EVERYBODY knows that’s not what vampires are about.”

Heh. I even posted on Mormons and vampires this morning.

Incidentally, did anyone else think Chris’s Cain excuse was ludicrous?

Actually, in some vampire lore, Lilith is the first vampire (once the angels cursed her for refusing to return to Adam) and that in revenge, she went seeking Cain (cast out) to make him her consort, so it’s not that ludicrous if you consider the breadth of vamp lore.

Frankly, I think now he’s coming off rather badly. He can express himself much better than Chris is implying his impression.

(Incidentally, did anyone else think Chris’s Cain excuse was ludicrous? Maybe 10% of Mormons have even heard of that and much fewer give it any credence, so claiming mixing vampires and Mormons is okay because of the Cain story is nuts, imho.)

I wish OSC would address this directly. Chris painted him pretty blackly and I would rather read from OSC himself what his opinions were. An actual book review would be even better.

Larry mentions a cultural quirk–hiding your coffee purchases in the grocery store. While that quirk *can* be a touchpoint to an exploration of conversion or commitment or addition or personal integrity, most often its an excuse to take some fairly simple shots at the silly ways we betray each other in the culture–usually with the intent of decrying Mormon culture as fallen, damaging, and pointless and justifying social separation as the only true way to find oneself.

While that it a lovely situation that is unarguably common for many people, do stories based on it tend to delve deeper into the frame issues? It’s a rare author who moves much beyond the surface cultural critique that situation suggest (I can’t think of any, so far). The situation itself is so iconic it actually interferes with a deeper exploration.

Card’s Speaker for the Dead is an interesting response to the problem. He creates utterly fantastic frames and situations precisely so he can bypass the ordinary cultural baggage and get to a more basic exploration. Arguably that’s what Kushner did for his primary audiences–he used extraordinary settings that verged on the absurd to get to some core questions. Problem is that Mormons took the overstated setting as the conversation itself and found it difficult to respect the second level of the idea because the situation made too much noise.

I think Mormons are more than capable of engaging the underlying questions, but we’re so sensitive to the social critique that the package often interferes. Can we as Mormon artists get clear of our own tendency to think too small about our cultural foibles and get to the deeper (and more generically human or existential) philosophical foundations that underpin the local cultural behaviors?

Card took one approach; Kushner another. Are there other frames for story delivery that facilitate the second level of the exploration?

It occurred to me that it is exactly the kind of novel that needs to be written about this situation. As good as the church’s PR is, I don’t think it has the potential that a novel would in demonstrating the nuance of the church’s approach – and of its members.

Perhaps a story with a character like Ender, who is eminently empathetic, yet makes a difficult stand due to abiding convictions. Whether or not you agree with the character’s decisions, you can understand him, because you believe he understands you. You can love him, in spite of his decisions, because you can be sure that, in spite of those decisions, he loves you.