Here are the courses I’m most anticipating, though I likely won’t be able to engorge myself on them all:

*Friday, March 25: 9:00–9:50 AM: MSH: Jonathon Penny, United Emirates University, “Godsbody—Image, Icon, and Word Made Flesh Made Word (in Rudy Wiebe’s A Discovery of Strangers and Paintings by Kirk Richards and Brian Kershisnik).”

It’s no secret that I’m a fan of Kirk’s work. I also appreciate Kershisnik’s. And I like Jonathon Penny’s stuff. too. He’s just emerging on the poetic scene and he’s a striking poet and scholar with a keen wit. I first came across Jonathon when I lurked on the LDS-HERM(eneutics) listserv for a short time last year (you can join the group here if it pleases you). And I’m deeply interested in LDS conceptions of embodiment (see this, for starters). So I think this session would start me off right.

*Friday, March 25: 11:00–11:50 PM: MSH: Blake Ostler, “An Embodied God before/after/with the Universe.”

Enough said.

*Friday, March 25: 2:15–3:45 PM: MSH: Wyatt Brockbank, Brigham Young University, “Only through the Body Do We Know, Experience, Live: Philosophers, Poets, and Prophets on the Importance of the Body.”

And again.

*Saturday, March 26: 9:00–9:50 AM: AML: Tyler Chadwick “21st Century Lyric Mormonisms.”

Oh, wait: that’s me! Here’s a taste of what I’m planning:

In the more than two-decades since Harvest: Contemporary Mormon Poems was published, many poets who maintain a variety of connections with Mormonism have established themselves within the field of contemporary American poetry. Indeed, since the turn of the millennium (from 2000 to the present), many have published in national venues and received national recognition and support for their work. Many others have risen to prominence within the Mormon literary community, publishing high-quality poems in Mormon-centered periodicals. Several of the poets from these two categories frequently publish work in both arenas. Still other poets with ties to Mormonism have used social media to potentially share their work with a broader audience than would be possible through publication solely in national or Mormon periodicals.

While each of these poets speaks with a distinctive voice and from a wide array of experiences, identities, and agendas, one thing that draws them together is a shared understanding of the language of Mormon experience. Although each understands this language to a different degree; although some speak it more openly and with greater accuracy than others; and although they claim various degrees of closeness to and activity within the LDS Church, their work can be profitably gathered and read–individually and collectively–as lyric manifestations of the contemporary Mormon cultural and religious experience. I’ve taken to calling these manifestations “21st century lyric Mormonisms.”

My intention here is three-fold: 1) to bring attention to the many Mormon-affiliated poets who are making names for themselves both within and beyond the growing number of Mormon periodicals and publishing houses (something I started here and will continue for years to come), 2) to examine the best of what these poets have published within the past decade, and in so doing 3) to discuss the varieties of the contemporary Mormon lyric voice and what such varieties may suggest about the current state and the potential of Mormon poetry.

Take my completely unbiased and un-self-aggrandizing word for it: you won’t want to miss this session! (But if you do, I may forgive you. Sometime. Maybe.)

*Saturday, March 26: 11:00–11:50 AM: MSH: Kirk Richards, “Embodiment and Duality: An Artist’s Perspective on the Physical and the Spiritual in Imagery.”

Um, yeah. I’ve been itching for years to see Kirk’s work in person. That is all.

*Saturday, March 26: 12:00–1:50 PM: AML Awards & Luncheon and Presidential Address.

Sure hope it’s good grub. Oh, and I’m interested in the awards and what the prez has to say, too.

*Saturday, March 26: 2:00–3:30 PM: AML: Gideon Burton, “Eugene England Online: Liberating Mormon Biography in the Digital Age.”

Eugene, Gideon, and new media. Sounds simply apocalyptic. Suh-weet.

*Saturday, March 26: 3:45–5:15 PM: AML: Gerrit van Dyk, “‘Miltons of Our Own’: Form and Convention in the Mormon Epic Poem”

OR

*MSH: David Heap, “Embodiment and Sexual Addiction: The Search for Intimacy in a World of Disconnection”

OR

*MSH: Todd Mack, Stanford University, “The Physical Engagements of the Literary Scholar”

OR

*MSH: David Isaksen, Brigham Young University, “The Body and the Poetic Universe”

OR

*MSH: Kirk Caudle, Marylhurst University, “The Discovery of Embodied Knowledge through the Discovery of the Authentic Self: A Guide for Revealing Ultimate Truth”

So. Many. Potentially. Awesome. Choices.

* * * *

So after looking over the offerings, what’s whet your appetite?

And, by the way, who’s going?

Mormon Media Market (1981)

When I was a student at BYU some enterprising student published a hardcover guide titled The Mormon Media Market, which followed the model of the Writer’s Digest annual guide Writer’s Market (now the subject of numerous spin-offs and copy-cat works). I thought at the time that this was a good idea, although it was clear from the content in the book that there wasn’t much of a market.

That has changed in the more than 20 years since that guide was published, and WindRiver Publishing is proving it, with the second (2010) edition of its LDS Writer’s Market Guide – 2010.

In my career in Book Publishing, I’ve become acquainted with many guides and reference works for the U.S. book industry, including tools like Literary Market Place, and Publishers, Distributors and Wholesalers of the United States. As near as I can tell, both the 1981 Mormon Media Market and this most recent guide were modeled after Writer’s Digest. That’s probably a good thing; writers are the largest group in the market, and the least likely to have all the knowledge they need .

WindRiver’s LDS Writer’s Market Guide is a credit to the need for this kind of a reference work. Its coverage is excellent, with listings covering not only the typical things authors need (publishers, agents, contests, conferences, professional organizations and associations and professional services), but also peripheral and industry listings that aren’t normally what the author has to worry about (self-publishers, book reviewers, bookstores and libraries). The number of listings is impressive: 51 publishers, 14 reviewers, 23 magazines, 34 contests, 17 professional organizations and associations and 214 bookstores.

One reason for the breadth of the listings is that there is no fee to be listed, no membership to be purchased to participate, so there is nothing to dissuade anyone from participating. As a result, the listings here are more complete than those elsewhere, and as a result, more useful.

I should mention that this work is by no means perfect. There are places where it is sometimes difficult to tell how “Mormon” a listing is, or even how it is different from others in its category. A few listings simply don’t have information other than the name and address of the company. I think some categories could be either sub-divided, or listed with more detailed types (for example, Archive Publishers is a reprint publisher, so authors probably won’t want to submit to them, while Zarahemla is a literary publisher, less likely to take genre works). And some authors will decry the omission of some widely-used organizations, such as the vanity publisher Lulu.

Still, it takes only a minute to realize that no reference book is ever complete, or categorized the way that we need it. I’m sure that with an increase in popularity and with additional time, this guide can improve significantly.

In the mean time, it is still an excellent tool for those who work in and with the LDS market.

Terryl Givens will be the keynote speaker. Several people have asked in different venues* what time he is going to speak, perhaps suggesting that there may be a coterie of Givens admires out there who will show up for his keynote and then ditch the rest of the day. Please don’t. I know Saturdays are precious, but it’s always lame when people show up for the main event and then ditch out on the other presenters. Part of the point of a big draw is provide energy to the rest of the day.**

Also: Who is planning on attending? Unsurprisingly, I won’t be there. I promise, though, that if I ever do make it, I will announce it here weeks in advance and that there will be some sort of Grand Tour, and that I will be asking for places to crash and chauffeurs and free meals and all that.

* I’m not accusing any of those who have asked of anything — but the fact of asking raised the suspicion in my mind that some folks might have ditching inclinations.

** My apologies to the AML for this post. They’re a gracious bunch, and I’m sure they’ll welcome everyone — even those who can’t stay. And really, it’s best to ignore a rabble rouser, layabout and blogger like me.

Now, if that’s not a daunting title, I don’t know what is. It was enough to pique my curiosity, though, and I left work early on Friday, November 7th to attend Vern Swanson’s thusly-named presentation at the Biennial Art, Belief, Meaning Symposium, Picturing the Divine, at the BYU Museum of Art.

Swanson is one of my favorite Mormon Art Curmudgeons, and not a very curmudgeonly one at that. He’s a wacky art guy, yes, but he’s downright jolly. The afternoon presentations were limited to a half hour, and unfortunately so was the culmination of the day – the panel discussion featuring Swanson, painter Brian Kershisnik, painter/professor Bruce Smith and BYU-H religion professor Keith Lane. A test in Chinese class had prevented me from attending Kershisnik’s keynote speech in the morning, and I was anxious to hear more while we had all these fantastic Mormon Art brains together in one room. But the limited time was well-spent, and I was left with all kinds of buzzy little concepts floating around in my brain, not to mention the cramp in my hand from trying to get as much as I could into my little spiral-bound notebook.

While the presentations were all independently interesting, I’ve decided to share my thoughts on them all in one over-arching framework. And Swanson provided such a framework very handily – his presentation focused on what he called the six pillars of Mormon art. I would like to break my comments, interspersed with what the presenters had to say and examples and commentary from the contemporary Mormon art world, into six separate discussions, to be published here – well, let’s be realistic – whenever I get the chance to write them. The first one will appear within the week.

As an introduction, however, here are the six pillars defined by Swanson:

• The Bible’s injunction against graven images
• Wisehearted art as “curious workmanship” and “cunning wisdom”
• The Book of Mormon’s view of art as a sign of arrogance
• “There is Beauty All Around” – decorative and collaborative art
• Art as a showpiece – proof of greatness
• Art as an agent for “softening one’s heart”

I look forward to discussing them with you.

The first session I attended included presenters William Brugger, Donald W. Parry, and Neal Kramer.  This session started with prayer; not all did.

Brugger’s paper, titled “Mormon Maritime Migration in Meter,” discussed poetry that  English converts to the gospel wrote as they uprooted from home soil and immigrated to the U. S. to answer the church’s call to gather to Zion. 

A surprising number of these Mormon pilgrims wrote poetry to justify their leaving to family and friends and to say goodbye to beloved homelands.  Brugger noted that a lot of the migration poetry appeared in early church publications, including the Millennial Star.  Most, he said, have been archived; few have been critiqued.  Brugger himself has collected around a thousand of these poems.

Brugger noted that some of the popular poetry written during this time is stiff, didactic, and undesireable, but most was quite polished, which is something of a surprise given the widespread illiteracy of the times.  Writers of Mormon immigration poetry includ Samuel Claridge, John McLaws, James Bond, John Lyon, and a fellow whose first name I missed but his last name was Richards.  (Anybody knowing the proper spelling of these names, chip in — I guessed spellings from hearing the names, not seeing them.)

Claridge came and went from Britain to America more than once and wrote poetry bidding farewell several times.  The poem Brugger showed us explained Claridge’s choice to immigrate to family and friends with the refrain, “Christ forbids me to stay.” 

McLaws’ poetry, which described the tender affection he held for the pastoral beauties of his homeland, argued that leaving the “mountains” and fields he loved was as hard as leaving family: 

Old Scotland, I leave the, tho thou’rt dear to me 

To go to a land where the people are free.  

James Bond, who was about as tactful as his fictitional namesake, wrote poetry he meant as a keepsake for those who, in his opinion, remained unwisely behind.  This group of loiterers would have included many who desired to immigrate but had not found the means.  His verse included stanzas such as:

As I’m going to part from you, these verses I make

And present them unto you, to keep for my sake

That when I am gone to a land o’er the sea,

You can look on these verses — and think upon me.

Especially, he urged readers, “think upon me” when you see the signs of God’s destruction around you.

The poetry immigrants left in their wake was intended to encourage brothers and sisters to follow them.  Some of the poetry was meant to innoculate immigrants against the dangers and hardships of sea travel, to “downplay trouble and risk.”  Thus it acted to share the burden of immigration and was a “form of consecration,” Brugger said. 

Donald Parry’s paper, titled “Isaiah’s Use of Double Meanings in the Song of the Suffering Servant,” asserted that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus Christ, though the usual approach to this passage is the Jewish one, with the suffering servant said to represent the Jews as a persecuted people.  But Parry noted that while the Jewish explanation accounts for the descriptions of the servant as being beat up and put upon, it doesn’t explain why this is done for our transgressions.

Parry said that Isaiah 53 has four recurring themes: 1) The Messiah’s suffering; 2) The Messiah’s assumption of our burdens and sins; 3) the Messiah’s death; 4) the Messiah’s reward. 

Isaiah, Parry said, is highly literate, and his writing is filled with word plays and double meanings, many of which contain turnabouts whose skillful use artistically enhances Isaiah’s messages.  Parry said Isaiah was inspired, clever, and original.  This prophet turned nouns into verbs and used more rare words than any other Old Testament writer. 

Parry provided several examples of Isaiah’s adoitness.  Here’s one:

Surely he hath born (nasa) our sickness. 

In Hebrew, nasa means “to bear,” specifically, as a donkey bears a huge burden, but it also means “to lift up.”  The wordplay here incorporates “two points of the atonement in one word.”  Parry noted that when speaking metaphorically of Christ, Isaiah often used the feminine forms of words for animals, for instance, describing Christ as a ewe instead of a ram.  Parry suggested this might be because female animals are thought to be more passive and also because they continue the generations — they give life.

Neal Kramer’s paper, “The Narrative Function of Nehor,” discussed some of the very striking and surprising characteristics of the story of Alma the Younger’s conflict with the anti-Christ Nehor.  Kramer noted that, among other differences, the narrative is crafted rather than told as a chronological account of the conflict between the two men and their beliefs. 

In the Book of Mormon, Sherem and Corihor are treated as individuals, but Nehor receives different treatment.  While Nehor is executed for his aggressive, anti-Chirst teachings, Alma continues to refer to him throughout the narrative.  Kramer believes that anti-atonement philosophies lie at the core of Nehorism.  He gave three characteristics of Nehorism: 1) No one is held responsible for sin, so there’s no sin; 2) No sin means no need for redemption; therefore, no need for a Christ; 3) A person’s popularity is the actual source of the proper authority of the priesthood.  On this last point, the pursuit of weath and power is a significant feature of Nehor’s concept of popularity and any end one aspiring to popularity wishes to achieve should be achieved  through violence.  Kramer remarked that much of the violence in the text can be traced to Nehor’s teachings.

This was a very interesting and complex paper, but the main point Kramer made seemed to be that Nehorism’s threat and heresy were so great that Alma took extreme measures to fight it, including giving up the judgement seat and engaging in stark “repent now” rhetoric.  Probably, Kramer said, Alma’s own past as “a murderer of souls” caused him to recognize the power of the threat Nehor and his followers posed and to engage it in a highly charged personal battle.   

Corihor, Kramer said, takes Nehorism to extremes.  Not only is there no Christ, there is no God.  ”The apex of nehorism is atheism,” Kramer said.  Kramer spoke at length about the extreme dualism Alma creates as he strives to counteract the teachings of Nehorism, saying Alma did it in order to combat the “extraordinary effects of Nehorism.”  If I ever teach gospel doctine again, I’ll remember this paper; Kramer’s points were extremely helpful in understanding the extremities of Alma’s rhetoric in this section of the Book of Mormon.

The plenary speaker Harold Rawlings gave an address titled “The History of the Bible.”  This address provided me several new points of reference for appreciating the Bible.  To help the audience’s regard for the Bible “deepen even more,” Rawlings took us on a tour through centuries of Bible activism and translation, starting with the first English Bible, Wycliffe’s Bible, which was published 239 years earlier than the King James version.  Rawlings detailed the personal sacrifices various Bible activists made to get the Bible into the hands of the people, laying out the relationship between the actions of dedicated individuals and the production of the Bible for mass audiences. 

John Wycliffe, translator of this early volume of the Bible, was considered the leading theologian in all of England and perhaps Europe.  He believed the teachings of the church ran counter to the teachings of the Bible.  At the time, two popes ruled the church and each excommunicated the other and each “bellowed at the other.”  Wycliffe preached against the accompanying abuses of power and doctrine with the result that  two papal bulls were issued against him and he was sentenced to be burned.  The sentence failed, but Wycliffe was forced from his position.   The church “thought they’d rid themselves of him,” but Wycliffe decided the only way people could judge the extent of the falsehoods and foolishness perpetrated by the church of that time was to put the Bible into common folks’ hands.  In 1382 he and a group of scholars produced a completed translation from Vulgate into English, at the time considered ” a gutter language.”  The book had to be handwritten and thus was too expensive for most.  Some, Rawlings said, would save for months to pay for an opportunity to read it; farmers paid a load of hay to read one page. 

Another important Bible mover and shaker was William Tyndale.  His translation rolled off the presses in 1525.  It was pocket-sized for easy concealment, since printing the Bible in English was against the law.  Tyndale ended up with a bounty on his head and suffered betrayal when a man named Phillips insinuated himself into Tyndale’s inner circle and then set him up for arrest.  Tyndale was brought to trial, condemned as a heretic, then sentenced to be burned.  Before the trial, officials put the robe of the clergy on him so they could “defrock” him in public. 

Rawlings emphasized that Tyndale “enriched the English language.”  Eighty percent of the King James translation is from Tyndale.  Among the phrases original to Tyndale: “Let there be light”; “my brother’s keeper”; “apple of his eye”; “signs of the times”; “salt of the earth”; “root of all evil.”  He also coined the words “Jehovah,” “Passover,” and, if I heard right, the word “beautiful.”  If there had been no Tyndale, Rawlings asserted, there would have been no Shakespeare. 

When Tyndale died, other scholars took up his work.  The Matthews Bible was finished in 1537 and became the basis for bibles up through the 20th Century.  Like other bibles, the Matthew Bible was constructed on Tyndale’s version.  Henry VIII finally authorized a translation of the Bible into English and it was mandated that every parish church have one.  Some were stolen, so they were chained to the podium and “came to be called ’The Chained Bible.’” 

“The Bible flourished under Edward VI,” Rawlings said, with the Geneva Bible published in 1560.  The Geneva Bible, the first Bible with verse numbers and Roman type, was the “favorite in England for almost one hundred years,” was the Bible of Shakespeare, and was the first Bible brought to America. 

The story of the King James Version of the Bible was an especially interesting one.  King James I didn’t care much for the Geneva Bible because, among other things, it contained notes opposing the divine right of kings.  He “jumped at the idea” of producing a new bible.   The King James Version of the Bible, Rawlings said, did not become immediately popular.  ”Appropriate changes” were made to purge the text of those offensive notes opposing the divine right of kings.  Very interesting was Rawling’s point that the KJV was “written for sound.”

At the end of his presentation, Rawlings lamented the decline in Bible literacy, saying it hurts not only a country’s moral underpinnings but also its literature.  FYI, you can read an online copy of the Tyndale Bible here.

The 2-3:30 AML session posed a dilemma.  Two separate events, both highly attractive to me, were scheduled: Jim Faulconer was presenting a paper titled, “Zion in the Text” at the same time Susan Howe, Bruce Jorgensen, Marilyn Brown and Diane Porter were presenting at a panel titled, “The Contributions of Clinton F. Larson to LDS Literature.” 

With one thing and another, I got to Faulconer’s presentation late.  Among his points: Scripture reveals God to us in ways other texts do not.  He discussed the problems of understanding scripture, problems that impose meanings, such as principles, on the text.  Principles are not to be confused with scriptural meaning.  When scriptures do speak to us, he said, they do so as a call rather than as principles — that is, scriptures call us to be something other than what we are.  The meaning of scriptural text leads us, Faulconer said, to Godly life. 

What we take to be scriptural meaning displaces scripture.  It is the work of interpretation to compel our ideas to meet scriptural meaning; it isn’t the work of scriptural meaning to confirm or support our ideas.  The overarching unity of scripture, Faulconer said, is the unity of Zion.  Latter-day Saints have an open canon.  We recognize priesthood as a second unity.  We share with one another scriptural meaning.  Yet we do need limits on interpretation — we can’t make scripture mean whatever we want it to.  Furthermore, answering the call scripture makes to us to be something else is dangerous, because it changes what we know.  “Scriptures call, we hearken, our hearkening brings about the reign of God.”

After Faulconer’s paper, I ducked out to catch what I could of the Larson panel.  I missed a lot, but the overall purpose of this panel seemed to be to call attention to the Larson family’s February 29, 2008 donation of Larson’s works, holographs, library, and biographical material to L. Tom Perry Special Collections in the Harold B. Lee Library.  They also donated copies of his last collection, Sunwind, for students to use in their studies of Mormon literature.

This donation is momentous.  If scholars will take advantage of it, it will contribute strongly to the development of Mormon literature and Mormon literary studies.  If I were younger and lived closer to the Lee Library, I would high dive into this collection with gusto.       

The Award for the Novel: On the Road to Heaven, by Coke Newell.  Honorable Mentions went to Before the Dawn by Dean Hughes and The Well of Ascension by Brandon Sanderson.

Young Adult Novel: This Is What I Did by Ann Dee Ellis.  Honorable Mentions went to The Princess and the Hound by Mettie Ivie Harrison and Alcatraz Versus the Evil Librarians by Brandon Sanderson.

Short Fiction: “Clothing Esther,” by Lisa Torcasso Downing.  Honorable Mention went to “Light of the New Day” by Darrin Cozzens.

Criticism Award: People of Paradox by Terryl Givens.  

Film Award: The Mormons, produced and directed by Helen Whitney.

Drama Award: Facing East by Carol Lynn Pearson

Biography Award: An Advocate for Women: The Public Life of Emmeline B. Wells 1870-1920 by Carol Cornwall Madsen.

Special Award: Segullah, a literary journal for Mormon women.

A special criticism award (I think it was) went to BYU Studies Issue 46:2, 2007, Mormons and Film, edited by Gideon Burton and Randy Astle.  This issue focuses on Mormons and film.   

Award for Outstanding Achievement in Mormon Literature/Contribution to Mormon Literature: Mystery writer Anne Perry.

I might have missed a second Honorable Mention in the Short Fiction category as well as one or two other categories.  If anybody has information to fill in blanks I’ve left or clarify the titles of any awards, such as the one that went to BYU Studies, feel free to correct/contribute.

You can find the full program here:

http://www.mormonletters.org:80/events/2008schedule.htm

The conference is free and open to the public.  More information and a link to purchase lunch tickets may be found here:

http://www.mormonletters.org/events/aml2008.html

The AML meetings provide excellent venues to keep up with what’s happening in Mormon film and literature as well as opportunities to meet scholars in the fields of MoLit and film.  When I started writing again after a long hiatus, joining the AML was one of the first things I did.  As often as I can, I go to the annual conference in the spring and the writers’ conference in the fall to listen to scholars present their work and to socialize with old friends and professors. 

This year, I’m presenting a paper: “Why Joseph Went to the Woods: Rootstock for LDS Literary Nature Writers” during the 3:30-4:50 time block (meaning I will miss the criticism panel!).   I wrote the paper around some of my blog posts here and at Times and Seasons.  My purpose in writing and presenting this year is to take a first formal step in encouraging LDS writers who already feel predisposed to write literary nature and science literature to develop their craft.

Hope to see you there!

Rick recounted how he was “discovered” in high school.  He described himself as “not a good student.”  Then one day he wrote a story for his English class and got it back with a note written on it: “This would make a good children’s book.” 

He named his mentors, too quickly for me to write them down before he was on to his next point, which was “Without friends watching out for me I wouldn’t have had much of a career.”  He deeply believes that connections are important, and that one of his missions is “to grow” Mormon literature. 

Rick listed six ways artists can network to promote their own careers and also make friends for the church:

1) Attend writers’ workshops and conferences.  These events carry with them implied solicitations for submissions.  He named some: Writers at Work, the Children’s Lit. Conference held at UVSC, and BYU’s Writing and Illustrating Conference.  One connection leads to another,” Walton said.  “If you’re interested in making connections, consider going to workshops and conferences.  If you’re an established writer, consider helping others get started in their careers.”

2) Hold retreats (small group workshops).  He suggested arranging a Saturday get-together-for-the-day, which includes going out for lunch together, etc.  Such informal retreats cost basically what it takes for people to drive to the meeting place and buy their lunches.  A second, more formal kind of retreat might involve flying a New York editor out and picking her brain.

3) Take (and teach) BYU classes, such as creative writing and, in his case, children’s literature classes.  He said illustration students take his children’s literature class because it expands their potential and doubles their income if in the course of taking his class they also learn to write stories and then illustrate their stories themselves.

As an aside, Walton mentioned he thought BYU needed an MFA in creative writing, as well as an emphasis on children’s writing.

4) Join a critique group.  Critique groups offer moral support as well as honest feedback.  Walton said that his “best connections, best feedback, and best friends” came out of a group he was a part of.  He said that “a good critique group will help you rise above yourself.”  It’s also a “great place to vent.”  Walton advised that if you don’t belong to a group you ought to “grow one from scratch.”

5) Subscribe to or create e-mail list services.  Walton said they’re free to set up, free to run, and easy to use.  “Through them I get cutting edge information that helps,” he said.  Also, such lists are another place to make friends.  One that he subscribes to covers “everything important to children’s literature and nothing related to religion unless it’s related to children’s literature.”  Founders of e-mail lists get naming rights, he said.

6) Involve yourself in mentoring.  Walton said there is “great joy in helping other along.”  His most important condition for mentoring others: That you “take their craft seriously.”  He urged established writers to “see who you can help along” because “as artists, we have a responsibility to become the very best and help others become the best they can.”

Walton thinks one of the biggest things that Mormon artists are missing is information.  As he wrapped up his presentation, he told us that he’d like to see at least one website where anybody LDS and in the arts could find out what’s going on.  He’d also like to see an on-line magazine that explores Mormon arts and what it means to be a Mormon artist (you getting all this down, William?).  On-line discussion groups who exist to help self-publishers would also be nice, he said.  Finally, wouldn’t it be wonderful if an organization that promotes artists and critiquing pro bono made itself available to Mormon artists?     

We are proud of the artistic heritage that the Church has brought to us from its earliest beginnings, but the full story of Mormonism has never yet been written nor painted nor sculpted nor spoken.  It remains for inspired hearts and talented fingers yet to reveal themselves.  They must be faithful, inspired, active Church members to give life and feeling and true perspective to a subject so worthy.  Such masterpieces should run for months in every movie center, cover every part of the globe in the tongues of the people, written by the best artists, purified by the best critics (”The Gospel Vision of the Arts,” pg. 5).

This AML session, “Purified by the Best Critics: Fostering Artistically Informed Criticisms and Critically Informed Art,” took its title from the above quote.  A panel consisting of Bruce Jorgensen (BYU English department), Dennis Packard (BYU philosphy), Mike Smith (Orem Public Library), Travis Anderson (BYU philosophy), and Eric Samuelson (BYU theater arts) discussed questions the session’s title raised.  Every member of the panel offered insightful remarks (hopefully other AMVers will cover those), but in this post I’ll concentrate on the points of view Dennis Packard and Bruce Jorgensen offered because the interesting counterpoint notes that rose between these two presentations snagged my attention.

Dennis Packard chaired the panel and opened the topic.  He wondered how artists could be purified by the best critics, since generally writers [or other artists] are not happy with critics.  Packard expressed his interest in the disconnect between critics and creativity and mused upon how that disconnect might be repaired.  He asked, how might libraries help bring critics and creators [Packard's word] together?  How can teachers help?

Packard said he sees librarians acting as critics in that their professional knowledge of books and films and their acquisitive imperative makes it possible for them to be aware of what’s going on in the publishing and motions picture industries.  Packard suggested that libraries could help literary and film critics by recommending books and films to critique.  They could aid critics by providing links to the best criticisms available on relevant books and films.  Libraries, Packard said, pick what’s best.

Furthermore, when the question arises, librarians could point to places where a critic might submit his or her appraisal of a work.  They could provide opportunities for critics to meet with audiences to test works in progress and guide audience response. 

Librarians, Packard said, could act as liasons between producers of creative works and critics and creators with works in progress.  Librarians could field e-mail queries on critical problems: “What have you got that I can look at.” 

Similar questions arise regarding where teachers might help repair the broken or weak link between creators with critics.  Teachers, Packard suggested, ought to teach critical theory most relevant to creators of literary or filmic works.  Furthermore, teachers ought to help students (as potential critics and portential artists) be sympathetic to critics and critics be sympathetic to creators.  Critics ought to be taught how to make suggestions to artists; also, if critics engage in creative projects themselves it will help them know how to connect with the artist.  Comparative film and lit programs could provide educational fodder for both artists and critics.  Why not show Glory and The Work and the Glory together for purposes of artistic compare and contrast?

Packard’s questions and comments seemed to presume the necessity of critical feedback during many steps, if not every step, of the creative process. Yet in spite of this preceived necessity, he acknowledged that the problem remains that there is an unfortunate disconnect between critics and artists: artists don’t like and don’t immediately adopt critics’ suggestions and frequently reject out-of-hand the critic-artist relationship.  He seemed to see this disconnect largely as a problem of education: critics need to be better educated in their craft, artists need to be taught how to accept better-informed critical review, and librarians and teachers can help in this process.  Also, if critics can engage in some creative endeavor themselves, then perhaps they’ll see better how to communicate with artists. 

Besides addressing the broader topic of the panel, Bruce Jorgensen’s comments seemed to address Packard’s points directly. On the broader topic, Jorgensen raised the point that President Kimball’s vision of the arts requires exegesis: What does he mean when he says this?  Kimball prophesies that “…bright stars will arise” (from where? BYU? he wondered by way, I believe, of questioning the “purity” of sky in which they’ll arise) but “doesn’t,” he pointed out, ”say whether they’ll be faithful members.”  

“And who,” Jorgensen wondered, “are the best critics?”  His answer to this question grabbed my attention and put words to something I’d felt but hadn’t yet articulated in my own musings upon literary nature writing.  “The best critics of the arts is done by artists,” he said.  One artist’s work answers and critiques another.  Fellow workers in the same craft are good critics. He quoted Harold Bloom as saying that the great artists of the past stand over present artists, creating an of anxiety of influence.  Later artists, Bloom asserts, have to get out from under their “mother and father” artists.  “The older artist is the critic of the younger artist,” Jorgensen said.  

“The idea of a work in progress being criticized is a weird process,” Jorgensen said.  A work in progress needs help, not criticism: “I like what you’re trying to do.  Let me help you with it.”  Generosity is important to this process.

Teachers, Jorgensen said, are middlemen: Students’ work critiqued and taught him.  Teachers ought to help people read better, “to read like writers.”  To a degree, this process will involve discussion.  He quoted Henry James, “Art thrives on discussion,” even discussion of a theoretical nature.  Also, art thrives on experiment, and experiment always precedes the discussion of itself.  But Jorgensen feels that at times during the creative process, critics — I assumed he meant formal critics – need to be kept out of the way.  As the artist works and the work takes shape, any feedback an artist receives ought to be informed by “a long history of affection and trust.” At least at times this process will be quite intimate, a trusting tete-a-tete between artists who are friends.  Critics need not apply.

The Association for Mormon Letters, he said, should do what it can to foster discussion groups and sponsor readings, maybe even readings where writers, if they’re willing, could read from their works in progress. 

I got an impression that Jorgensen might have thought that the title of the panel, “Purified by the Best Critics,” placed undue emphasis upon the role of criticism, especially where “criticism” is assumed to mean formal criticism done by people who are not artists.  Also, such a title and the assumptions that fly with it places an undue burden upon the artist to be ”purified.”  Who would “purify” an artist, and why?  Artistic tradition contains built-in critical process, an intrinsic critical dialogue that unfolds between the works of younger artists engaging an artistic tradition and older artists whose works define the tradition.  Furthermore, trust and affection, such as exists in long-standing relationships between artists, is key to the critical development of a work.  Critics cannot presume investment of such trust simply because they hold an office of “formal critic.”  Implicit in this point, and in Jorgensen’s raising it in the context of remarks made during in the panel discussion, is the belief that one aspect of the breach between critics and artists lies in problems of trust and affection, especially where critics lack long-standing friendships with artists.  Education may help partly bridge the gap between critics and artists, but ultimately the deeper, most effective critical bonds run between artists, both artists who are friends and have built up a creative critical tradition between them, and between younger artists whose works engage the critical tradition that older, acknowledged artists have opened for discussion.  In this way, the breach between artists and critics cannot be fixed.  In fact, formal critics may find themselves shut out from this energetic and intimate process, as at times they should be.   

During the conference luncheon, Melissa Proffitt of the AML presented several awards.  These awards cover various Mormon-authored or Mormon-themed media published or produced (or in some other way brought to attention) during 2006.  Last spring, A Motley Vision came home with the AML 2005 Award for Criticism; to my knowledge, that was the first time a blog produced a blip on the AML’s radar.  This year that blip got a little bigger.  What this means for blogging’s future remains open for debate.

But now, to satisfy our readers’ curiosity and provide information that we hope people will find at least mildly interesting, here are the 2006 Association for Mormon Letters Awards.

Short Fiction

Winner: Kristen Carson, for “‘Atta Boy,” published in Dialogue 38:2 (Summer 2005).

Honorable Mention: Virginia Baker, “And Cry the Name of David,” published in All the Rage This Year: Phobos Science Fiction Anthology 3, 2004.

Honorable Mention: Heather Marx, “Brother Singh,” published in Irreantum 6:2.

Honorable Mention: Aaron Orullian, “Judgement Day,” published in Irreantum 7:3. 

Young Adult

Winner: Brandon Mull, Fablehaven.

Honorable Mention: Shannon Hale, River Secrets.

Honorable Mention: Janette Rallison, It’s a Mall World After All.  

Novel

Winner: Toni Sorensen Brown, Redemption Road. 

Honorable Mention: Orson Scott Card, Empire.

Honorable Mention: Brandon Sanderson, Mistborn.   

Drama

Winner: Tim Slover, for Treasure. 

A retroactive 2003 Award for Drama was also awarded to LeeAnne Adams for her play, Archipelago.

Film

Winner: Annie Poon, The Book of Visions.

Honorable Mention: Melissa Puente, Sisterz in Zion.

Honorable Mention: Tom Russell, Angie.

Criticism

Patricia Karamesines, “The Rhetoric of Stealing God,” published on A Motley Vision, April 30, 2006.

Essay

Winner: John Bennion, “Like the Lilies of the Field,” in Dialogue 39:4 (Winter 2006).

Honorable Mention: Wilfried Decoo, “The Unspeakable,” Times and Seasons, March 28, 2006.

Honorable Mention: Patricia Karamesines, “The Birds of Summer,” A Motley Vision, September 19, 2006.

AML Special Award

This year the 2006 AML Special Award went to James V. D’Arc, Blaine L. Gale, E. Hunter Hale, and Richard I. Hale for their restoration of Trapped by the Mormon, a British anti-Mormon film legendary for its awfulness, first released in 1922.

Award for Service to AML

Angela Hallstrom received this well-deserved award for the dedication and tenacity she showed in stepping up to take the reins of the Irreantum under production at the time of Laraine Wilkin’s tragic passing.  This award is well-deserved. Bravo, Angela.  Readers can see AMV’s review of this issue of Irreantum here.

Smith-Pettit Foundation Award for Outstanding Contribution to Mormon Letters

Rick Walton

NOTE: Melissa also announced the winner of Sunstone’s Eugene England Memorial Personal Essay Contest, but I feel timid about scooping Sunstone, especially since the information wasn’t included on the awards list I received and I don’t have it all.  (Maybe if somebody were to twist my arm …)