I’m writing a novel right now where the main character is female, black, and LDS. The fact that she’s black won’t really come out until well into the novel. At this point, the fact that she’s LDS won’t come out explicitly at all, though someone reading the novel who knows that she’s LDS will see some signposts along the way, both in passing references by the character and in some of the choices she makes and the things she says to herself and others. And the novel itself doesn’t fit within the usual LDS fiction venue (think Tim Powers, though I claim none of his talents and skills).

Besides Potok (who is a great model), you might also consider Isaac Bashevis Singer as a model for a different type of LDS literature. ..bruce..

I also think Rameumptom is onto a very important point. It seems to me that “arts & letters” Mormons often spend more time trying to eradicate the Sunstone-DB/Seagull dichotomy than defining it. As a result, they don’t really “stand” anywhere. They straddle. Or make themselves safely irrelevant.

Mainstream Mormons want to be accepted by Mainstream Christians, and “arts & letters” Mormons want to be accepted by Mainstream Mormons, and nobody wants to offend anybody. Where’s the conflict?

I do not think there is enough difference between Iron Rodders and Sunstone Readers within the LDS Mormon church to create enough conflict for the average reader to want to absorb it, much less compare it to Chaim Potok’s Asher Lev.

One of the things Busby discusses in the essay (not printed here) is the fact that Potok wasn’t an “insider” within the orthodox Jewish community. We outsiders might *read* him as an insider, but if a Mormon author had written the equivalent of _My Name is Asher Lev_, for instance? I’m certain many orthodox Mormons would dismiss the author out of hand. Of course, Judaism casts a very wide net that includes conservative and liberal believers and everything in between. Mormonism, in contrast, has a very small net, and the size of this net has ramifications for those who want to stay inside it and still create compelling literature that resonates with a wide audience.

I agree, though, that telling a strong story is part the answer, as is being mindful of the “humanity” of the novel’s characters, as homeschoolin’hen said.

MoJo, I agree with you that the apparent DB/Sunstone dichotomy forces writers into corners where they don’t necessarily need to take up residence. And our novels don’t need to be primarily *about* Mormonism—I don’t think Potok’s novels were primarily about Judaism. In fact, novels that set out to either prove or excoriate Mormonism almost always have a very difficult time succeeding artistically, in my opinion.

And Th., when I first received the essay submission I wondered if we needed another Chaim Potok discussion in Mormon letters. But Busby does it so well that I believe it’s a very valuable addition to the conversation.

Although hardly a new idea, I thought Busby’s article did an excellent job at looking into why we are so drawn to Potok and the lessons that might be there for us to learn.

And many Mormons will rush to prophylactically place any unconventional Mormon novel in that category, whether it belongs there or not.

Indeed.

You can have Mormon commentary “fit” for the LDS community either intellectual or not (read: Sunstone or DB/Seagull) and you can have mainstream acceptance via the veiled symbolism of science fiction/fantasy (read: Orson Scott Card and Stephenie Meyer) and you can have blatant sensationalism by people who have an anti agenda and/or don’t really know what they’re talking about and simply use it as a device (read: Godmakers or Angels in America).

Heaven forbid anyone put something out there where the Mormonism of the characters is just another layer of the story and is NOT the story. We have to be completely unapologetic and fearless in putting our culture out there WITH ALL OUR CULTURAL WARTS AND FOIBLES if we want mainstream America to be as versed in our vocabulary and culture as it is in the vocabulary and culture of Catholicism and Judaism.

That IS the ultimate goal, no?

But why? We’ve been taught from the beginning that we must set ourselves apart and be a “peculiar people,” yet here we all are, trying to figure out ways to wiggle our way into the mainstream consciousness as “normal.”

Chanson posted this photo today on Main Street Plaza. Oh, look what company we keep.

We cannot be at once “a peculiar people” and accepted by the mainstream. Because once the vocabulary and culture is familiar, we cease being a peculiar people.

Great writing will draw the reader into the story if it is written in such a way that the humanity of man is addressed. While Mormon culture may be obscure to much of the world, conflict and resolution are universal and relevant, even though situational specifics may differ. While Mormonism may be “obscure” it is coming more and more to the forefront.