Up: review of fiction and nonfiction (as if it were fiction).

I wasn’t super sold on the poetry either, but besides the terrible third line, I thought “Blunt Force Trauma” was good and I loved “I’ll Tell You What the Butterfly Represents.” It’s not of astonishing depth, but it is a lovely-faceted jem of what it is. (imho)

In the world of Mormon Literature, we don’t have too many options. If you are fortunate, an item rejected by Irreantum can be published in Dialogue or BYU Studies or elsewhere, or even in some non-Mormon-specific journal. But since those journals aren’t specific to Mormon Literature, the odds aren’t that good.

Which brings me to William’s suggestion to Angela in comment #11 that “if the sheer number of worthy entries exceeds the number that can go in to Irreantum the print journal, perhaps some of them could be tossed our way.” I can’t resist comparing this situation to my wife’s field, where scientific journals are classified into “first tier,” “second tier,” “third tier,” etc. Within Mormon Literature, we really only have one journal. (We do have a few websites like AMV and a magazine or perhaps two.) Seems to me that we could improve the situation further by making sure the content finds a place.

The non-self-publishing thing is unfortunate. For me, it would be a strong incentive not to get involved on the editorial side. (Not that anybody is asking anyway!)

And don’t be too hard on Bruce Jorgensen. I certainly bristle at simplistic readings of the For the Strength of the Youth pamphlet’s statements regarding violence in media. Post-bristle, I point out that, given our history and scriptures, things aren’t so simple. Then I do a pantomime of Coriantumr smiting off the Head of Shiz.

Thanks, Wm.

As a good postmodernist I read anything that can be construed as having a narrative or even simply making an attempt at meaning as literature (or at least as worthy of semiotic interpretation and situation). The sentence you quote is less a blanket statement on the value of scripture as literature and more a particular response to what Jorgensen is attempting to do. I find great literary value in scripture. However, I don’t expect the fact that there is scripture that has literary value to mean that all Mormons (esp. those without the literary training ) need to transplant the level of gratuitousness found in scripture in to other forms of narrative discourse — especially literary discourse.

Or in other words: just because A contains B doesn’t meant that B in C operates in the exact same way and so is just as palatable as B in A.

Your link to “Here’s me on Jorgensen” doesn’t go anywhere, for me at least. (Which is rather different from saying either that (a) your comments on Jorgensen don’t go anywhere, or (b) Jorgensen doesn’t go anywhere – neither of which I’m in a position to judge at this point…)