Last week Kent asked AMV readers to consider what would make a Mormon theory of literature different. I could be wrong, but Iâ€™m assuming that his points of comparisonâ€”his different thanâ€”are general theories of literature as well as the theories of literature practiced in the Mormon Letters community. In response to Kentâ€™s query, to the responses it received, and to some other things that have been written in the past two years or so about the relationship among Mormons, Mormonism, literature, and theory, Iâ€™m developing some ideas on this relationship and the ways it has been theorized by members of the Mormon letters community; as I develop them, I’ll further address some things that I think are vital to this relationship and how it functions as a critical apparatus. I offer the incipient thoughts that make up this post in earnest of the more thorough treatment Iâ€™m composing. My primary focus in this brief discussion is to outline the ways theory and Mormonism get talked about in Kentâ€™s post and its thread of responses (at least those made up to Jonathan’s 2/10/14 reply).
I see reference to at least three kinds of theory in the discussion: theories of Mormon literature, theories of Mormons and literature, and Mormon theories of literature. While I plan to elaborate more on these kinds of theory as I develop a more extensive response, for now here’s how I distinguish among them:
*Theories of Mormon literature
- explore and attempt to explain the functions of literature written by, for, and/or about Mormons.
- Jonathan points to this kind of theory when he mentions how many of the essays in Tending the Garden are concerned with “characterizing Mormon literature.”
- Jettboy addresses it when he mentions that the statements made by Orson Whitney and reiterated by recent prophets have potential â€œfor helping [writers] tell the story of Mormonismâ€ and when he suggests that we ought to ask ourselves why we need a Mormon literature.
*Theories of Mormons and literature
- explore and attempt to explain the relationship between Mormons and literature. Among other things, these include efforts to understand, to analyze, and to critique: a) the literature Mormons read and/or the literature Mormons eschew and why they read it or eschew it; b) the ways in which Mormons read, receive, and respond to literature; and c) literature as a means to increased truth and righteousness. Such theories are often concerned with texts’ level of appropriateness for Mormon readers and often focus on how texts adhere or not to the principles listed in the Thirteenth Article of Faith: with how virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy a text is and by extension with how the text helps or doesn’t help readers become more honest, true, chaste, benevolent, and virtuous, and of greater benefit to others.
- Kent points to this type of theory when he mentions the things Mormons tend to argue about when it comes to reading: â€œthe role of evil in literatureâ€ and â€œthe presence or absence of sex, profanity, and violence in literature.â€
- Jonathan addresses it when he says that â€œA good place to start with any Mormon theory of literature is how it is that reading literature can help us become better people, in light of Mormonismâ€™s perspective on the eternal destiny of humanityâ€; when he suggests that within Mormon culture â€œthere is a common (though not I think dominant) attitude that literature and literary production are somehow suspect in one or more [. . .] waysâ€; and when he argues that â€œany theory that seeks to justify a broader role for literatureâ€ â€œin the lives of the faithfulâ€ must do so â€œon Mormon grounds.â€
- Jettboy addresses it when he brings up the belief that â€œMormonism and literature [. . .] arenâ€™t compatibleâ€ and â€œcannot coexistâ€ because reading literature (which isnâ€™t â€œâ€˜realâ€™ or practicalâ€) is â€œa past time [sic] that teaches nothing and keeps people ignorant with lies and distortions.â€
*Mormon theories of literature
- explore Mormon theology as a system of thought that, among other things, can uniquely discuss the creation and functions of language and literature and the ways readers interact with and are influenced by texts; and that can contribute to, draw from, expand upon, and critique other philosophical systems that have been used and/or constructed to discuss the functions of language and literature and the ways readers interact with and are influenced by texts.
- Kentâ€™s post as a whole asks after a Mormon theory of literature, which itself centers (in part) on this question: â€œCan Mormonism add anything different to the discussion about literary theory?â€ (Perhaps a more productive way to frame the issues central to this type of theory might be to ask the question like this: What can Mormonism add to and/or learn from other theories of literature and how can it critique them?)
- Wm address this type of theory when he argues that â€œthe place to start in terms of a Mormon theory of literature is with agencyâ€ and when he points to the work of â€œa BYU professor who has done some work on an ethical framework for approaching literature,â€ one that I’m assuming draws somehow from Mormonism.
- Jonathan addresses it when he says heâ€™s â€œinterested in how Mormon scholars and writers can put a Mormon â€˜spinâ€™ on [. . .] different literary approachesâ€ (including Marxism, feminism, deconstruction, archetypal criticism, and Tolkienâ€™s thoughts on how God might use works of art).
As I mention in my introduction, this framework isn’t fully fleshed out: thereâ€™s obviously some overlap among these approaches (as happens with any attempt to categorize things) and each theory could be illustrated with specific texts that take up said theory. But I’m throwing my thoughts out there as I develop them so I can test the ideas on an audience and see how useful others think the categories might be in extending the conversation on Mormons, Mormonism, literature, and theory.
I, for one, am convinced that one way to advance this conversation is to avoid conflating the types of theory I mention here. Each ultimately serves a different function and may be more or less useful to different audiences within and without the Mormon letters community (more on those audiences to come). But I think distinguishing among these types of theory and their functions could promote less confusion as the discussion proceeds (confusion of the kind that happens when critics talk past each other because theyâ€™re each asking after different things) and could suggest ways we might more fully develop our personal and collective interests in Mormon approaches to literature.
So: thoughts on this framework-in-process?