What do Chekhov, Issa, Basho, Duane Niatum, Natalie Goldberg and Italo Calvino have to do with Mormonism?

You're a writer who loves these big, tough songs that pierce your heart and make you feel alive all over again.  You believe in literature with a soul.  You believe in the book that makes you think, that makes you feel as though you've been somewhere and experienced something, that you're a different person for having read it.  Writing to entertain doesn't matter to you.  Writing to impress others with your cleverness or your hoped-for-brilliance doesn't matter as much as it once did.  Your desire is like Chekhov's who spoke of describing a situation so truthfully that the reader can no longer avoid it.  Or, in your own words, to wrangle with the tough places in yourself and your subject.  Those things matter to you. 


Thus opens "Writing:  An Act of Responsibility" by Phyllis Barber, which serves as the introduction to The Best of Mormonism 2009 as well as a personal reflection by the author on the role of contemporary Mormon writers in Literature.  As is clear from the opening paragraph, this essay, like the entire anthology, holds its own ground.  So, one might ask, why even publish an anthology of Mormon writers?  If they truly are on par with their intellectual peers across the nation, why not read their work in Black Warrior Review, Iowa Review, Puerto del Sol, New Yorker, etc.?  Obviously, one reason might be the same reason I assume Duane Niatum put together Harper's Anthology of 20th Century Native American Literature in 1988.  Prejudice.  Lack of market.  Unequal access.  History distorted by other voices.  The desire to be taken seriously without abandoning your culture.

But, I think there is another reason, which is indicated by the fact that this personal reflection is written in second-person, not first.  Very different from say Natalie Goldberg, whose personal reflections are always wonderfully personal, wonderfully informal, wonderfully irreverent.  That second person is there for two reasons:  First, as Mormon artists we are unsure of ourselves in the outside world.  Not afraid that we aren't good enough writers, but afraid that if we write about what matters to us most, our religion, we won't be taken seriously by non-Mormons.  So we distance ourselves, seek safety in the second or third person. 

The truth is we don't fully believe that we can "describe a situation so truthfully that the reader can no longer avoid it."  Not that we'll fail as writers, but that the world will fail as readers--that the mere mention of our religion will kill any chances of being heard.  Believe me, this is a valid fear.  If you're still tuned in, you're more enlightened than most. Thank you.

Barber doesn't openly discuss this fear.  Most Mormons won't.  When it comes to facing prejudice, Mormons have largely turned the other cheek.  It's what we're taught. Confrontation kills the spirit.  The Holy Ghost and argument can't coexist.  It's pretty difficult to get a well-brought-up Mormon to Bible bash.  The unintended effect is a lot of us spend much of life invisible.  Not that people don't know we're Mormon.  We're pretty open about that.  Not that people don't know we're writers; we're pretty open about that.  But we're afraid to be Mormon writers.  We want our intellectual and artistic life to be separate from our spiritual life.  Absurd, of course.   If poetry is bread, and I'm Mormon, it's ridiculous that I should try to write only secular verse.  And yet we do.  That is the deadliest effect of prejudice.   It makes the victims question themselves.  I am is no longer I am.  I am is either what you want me to be or I am is a reaction against what you want me to be.  Either way, I am no longer exists.

Barber does talk extensively about the other fear that plagues Mormon writers.  Will we be open enough, or will our religion cloud our vision?  In other words, will we be as prejudice towards others as others are towards us?  Will we get on our high horse? 

In reflecting on this, Barber uses politics as a venue to discuss the role of personal belief in literature, paraphrasing Italo Calvino's rules as a start:

1) Literature should never be used for a single cause--i.e., Maoist theory is the only valid subject for Chinese writers.

2) Literature should never be viewed "as an assortment of eternal human sentiments".  It is not the job of the writer to write what is already known, but to discover the unknown.

3) Literature is vital when it "gives voice to whatever is without a voice".

4) Literature has the potential to "impose patterns of language, of vision, of imagination, of mental effort and the creation of a model of values that is at the same time aesthetic and ethical".

I believe Calvino's descriptions of the right and wrong mixtures of politics and literature extends perfectly to matters of religion.   I also believe Calvino's descriptions of right and wrong mixtures extends to many of the arts.  I therefore propose to write several small articles about the work of Mormon writers and artists.

The purpose is not to proselytize.  I'll leave converting to the missionaries who have probably already knocked on your door during supper time.  And the purpose is not to build bridges--to find universal values that we share across our distinct cultures.  If you don't like me for who I am, too bad.  I spent the first thirty years hiding who I really am, and I've been done with that for more than a decade.  I AM.

Rather, I want to demonstrate that there is a healthy, vital Mormon arts community out there, and if you're not familiar with it, you're missing out.  Imagine the world without Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist or Islamic art. 

Secondly, Mormon culture is strong enough to ""impose" unique "patterns of language, of vision, of imagination, of mental effort and the creation of a model of values that is at the same time aesthetic and ethical."   Much of Mormon art is uniquely Mormon.  Just as you can't read Issa or Basho without becoming a little bit Buddhist, you can't read or listen to certain Mormon works without becoming a little bit Mormon.

If that scares you, well, you've got a problem.  But, you don't have to deal with it.  Just exit this blog, don't return to it, and your world will remain forever the same.

As for my title, "What do Chekhov, Issa, Basho, Duane Niatum, Natalie Goldberg and Italo Calvino have to do with Mormonism?"

Nothing really, but would you have you typed in "Mormon Writers," "Mormon Artists" or "Phyllis Barber" in your search?  Probably not.  Thus the need for this and many similar posts.