<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Short History of Mormon Publishing: Home Literature</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.motleyvision.org/2010/mormon-publishing-home-literature/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.motleyvision.org/2010/mormon-publishing-home-literature/</link>
	<description>Mormon Arts and Culture</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:46:59 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kent Larsen</title>
		<link>http://www.motleyvision.org/2010/mormon-publishing-home-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-39754</link>
		<dc:creator>Kent Larsen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:45:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.motleyvision.org/?p=3678#comment-39754</guid>
		<description>WM, (1), I have no idea if that was a factor or not, but I think your thought that it might be is very interesting. The only way that I think we would know is if an author or editor recorded something about that somewhere -- say in a journal. I wouldn&#039;t hold my breath waiting for someone to research that.

Th. (2), what surprised me about the term &quot;Home Literature&quot; is that it was used to refer to &lt;strong&gt;ALL&lt;/strong&gt; the materials produced by Church members -- including non-fiction like history and doctrine. I had originally assumed that the term referred just to fiction.

Th. (3) I didn&#039;t know that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WM, (1), I have no idea if that was a factor or not, but I think your thought that it might be is very interesting. The only way that I think we would know is if an author or editor recorded something about that somewhere &#8212; say in a journal. I wouldn&#8217;t hold my breath waiting for someone to research that.</p>
<p>Th. (2), what surprised me about the term &#8220;Home Literature&#8221; is that it was used to refer to <strong>ALL</strong> the materials produced by Church members &#8212; including non-fiction like history and doctrine. I had originally assumed that the term referred just to fiction.</p>
<p>Th. (3) I didn&#8217;t know that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wm Morris</title>
		<link>http://www.motleyvision.org/2010/mormon-publishing-home-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-39753</link>
		<dc:creator>Wm Morris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:51:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.motleyvision.org/?p=3678#comment-39753</guid>
		<description>The novel tends to do that, Theric. That&#039;s why wondered if that was a factor in the preference for short fiction in addition to the fact that it&#039;s easier and cheaper to publish.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The novel tends to do that, Theric. That&#8217;s why wondered if that was a factor in the preference for short fiction in addition to the fact that it&#8217;s easier and cheaper to publish.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Th.</title>
		<link>http://www.motleyvision.org/2010/mormon-publishing-home-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-39752</link>
		<dc:creator>Th.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:20:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.motleyvision.org/?p=3678#comment-39752</guid>
		<description>.

&lt;blockquote&gt;Church magazines carried fiction until 1974.

They continued to carry fiction after the change in magazines. The Ensign stopped first, but The New Era and Friend kept it up until at least the mid90s.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>.</p>
<blockquote><p>Church magazines carried fiction until 1974.</p>
<p>They continued to carry fiction after the change in magazines. The Ensign stopped first, but The New Era and Friend kept it up until at least the mid90s.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Th.</title>
		<link>http://www.motleyvision.org/2010/mormon-publishing-home-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-39751</link>
		<dc:creator>Th.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:18:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.motleyvision.org/?p=3678#comment-39751</guid>
		<description>.

I had forgotten that &quot;Home Literature&quot; was a term they selected for themselves and not invented by Eugene England. Adds a bit of resonance to the term.

About didactic novels and Nephi Anderson, I&#039;ve only read two of his books, but even &lt;i&gt;Added Upon&lt;/i&gt; isn&#039;t didactic in the strictest sense. (Although it&#039;s didactic. Let&#039;s not pretend otherwise.) &lt;i&gt;Dorian&lt;/i&gt; however, is much more complex. I&#039;m not sure it would meet DB/Covt&#039;s current bleached publishing standards.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>.</p>
<p>I had forgotten that &#8220;Home Literature&#8221; was a term they selected for themselves and not invented by Eugene England. Adds a bit of resonance to the term.</p>
<p>About didactic novels and Nephi Anderson, I&#8217;ve only read two of his books, but even <i>Added Upon</i> isn&#8217;t didactic in the strictest sense. (Although it&#8217;s didactic. Let&#8217;s not pretend otherwise.) <i>Dorian</i> however, is much more complex. I&#8217;m not sure it would meet DB/Covt&#8217;s current bleached publishing standards.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wm Morris</title>
		<link>http://www.motleyvision.org/2010/mormon-publishing-home-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-39750</link>
		<dc:creator>Wm Morris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:12:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.motleyvision.org/?p=3678#comment-39750</guid>
		<description>This is really useful, Kent.

I wonder if short and serial fiction remained dominant not only because the periodicals were the major publishers and short fiction is cheaper to print, but also because didactic fiction is easier to take in short story form. Novels, perhaps, demand conflict and nuance in a way that short stories don&#039;t (speaking strictly about the length and general form and not about different schools of through related to them).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is really useful, Kent.</p>
<p>I wonder if short and serial fiction remained dominant not only because the periodicals were the major publishers and short fiction is cheaper to print, but also because didactic fiction is easier to take in short story form. Novels, perhaps, demand conflict and nuance in a way that short stories don&#8217;t (speaking strictly about the length and general form and not about different schools of through related to them).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

