What are the hallmarks of a great novel?

• Plot.  There must be conflict.  There has to be a climax and a denouement.
• Character development.  Characters have to be full human beings, warts and all, with flaws and redeeming qualities.  Protagonists must change over the course of the novel.
• Themes.  A great novel will speak to the range of human experience through themes that transcend time and culture.
• Courage.  An author of a great novel has to be willing to speak unsavory truths, to look into the abyss, and to expose vulnerabilities (both his/her own and those of his/her subject).
• Novelty.  “There’s nothing new under the sun” as it says in Ecclesiastes, but a great novel has to feel fresh anyway.  It has to say something better than those who have said it before.

What prevents a novel from being great (aside from just bad writing)?

• Censorship.  The opposite of courage (in writing) is censorship, whether it is self-censorship or by others.  Having one eye on public relations creates a casualty of courage.  Without courage, topics like sexuality, violence, and even the topic of censorship itself can be omitted or glossed over.  This can result in a work that is toothless, gutless and crotchless.
• Superficiality.  Creating inauthentic or two-dimensional characters, or focusing solely on the characters or themes with weak plot development can result in a work that lacks depth.  Creating depth requires having depth; in some ways, Mormons spend our lives trying to avoid depth.  We know there is a “dark side” to humanity, and we stay as far away from it as we can.  Writers have to write about what they know, and if you don’t know the depths of your soul, it’s hard to write about that convincingly.

The ”great Mormon novel” has the added difficulty of subject matter.  If you are writing a Mormon novel (in the sense that Graham Greene wrote Catholic novels or Chaim Potok wrote Jewish novels), your novel will have Mormon themes.  If your novel is to have depth, it must cover the range of human experience, both the good and the bad.  And in so doing, there will likely be elements that are both loyal and disloyal to the church.  Those elements of disloyalty (even characters with internal conflict) can cause self-censorship as well as censorship (discouragement) by the group.

So, let’s talk about Twilight.  Twilight is an enormously popular book with a specific target audience.  It is a huge success by most measures.  I don’t think anyone would credibly argue it has a permanent place in the canon of literature, so it is not really up for consideration as “The Great Mormon Novel.”  But how Mormon is it?  This is a question being debated here.  A few opposing viewpoints that were shared (you can read the comments in their entirety in the link):

Andrew Oh-Willeke said:  “One way to read the story allegorically is that the Cullen’s (the good vampire family, if you weren’t paying attention) are the Mormons. They, given the free will to choose between right and wrong in this world have chosen virtue and abstinance despite temptation, in their diet, and in how they choose to love. . . There are also strong associations in the books between vampires and angels, mirroring the importance of angels in LDS scripture. The vampires are described as seraphic, and glimmer in the sun. They aren’t necessarily angels themselves, but are close to angels.  [I]t is a story full of LDS dog whistles.”

Mormon Soprano retorts:  “I submit to you that Meyer’s books are the antithesis of Mormon doctrine, and should be disturbing to any faithful active member. . . Just reading these books causes erotic thoughts and feelings because of what the characters are doing to and with each other. . .  Stephanie Meyer’s books are such a big hit with “the world” because they are titilating. . . The tragedy to me is that Meyer is continually referred to as “Mormon” and “LDS”, and her books have been given a free pass to sell at Deseret Book and Segull Book stores.  Please wake up out of your vampire trances my Twilight friends! There is nothing “lovely or praiseworthy or of good report” to be found in these books or movie. Faithful latter-day Saints need to send a message that lowered standards are never acceptable. My advice is to Stop buying these books, send a letter of complaint to LDS booksellers, and refuse to spend your money in support of this new movie!

These comments go to the heart of the difficulty for Mormon authors.  A Mormon’s work will be dissected for Mormon content and either praised or villified on that basis.  While Andrew’s argument states that the books are a Mormon allegory, Mormon Soprano finds the message in conflict with Mormon teachings.  So, what’s the answer?

Can LDS authors write books that contradict Mormon teachings?  Every Mormon author has to grapple with that question, and it is at heart a question of censorship, either by the group or by the author him/herself.  Authors who fear reprisal for their words, even their fictional words, will never write “The Great Mormon Novel.”

I remember when I was younger I often, for some reason, considered the case of Pontius Pilate.  I remember reading about him and perceiving him as a helpless, unwitting player in Christ’s death.  I saw him as innocent, washing his hands of the blood of Christ, wanting to help but not having the power to stem the relentless tide of the throngs of angry people wishing to put the Savior to death.  I remember one time in particular when I was very young, probably eleven or twelve, praying on my knees to ask God not to judge Pilate harshly.  It hadn’t entered my heart that I was not the first person to do this over the last couple thousand years.  I just felt closely connected to the story, and from what I read I saw him as mostly innocent.

Into my deconstructive teenage years, I read a bit more about Pilate’s life and realized that a great deal of evidence points to the idea that he may have been a cruel man, as many Roman leaders were, and that his life was anything but exemplary.  Christ was probably one of many men that Pilate sent to their death.  I saw myself as naive and almost embarrassed for thinking he was innocent.  Sometimes I think we get a strange kind of pleasure out of character deconstruction, especially historical figures, as Russ may tell you from his grad school history studies.

Yet popular opinion is as it usually is:  divided.  It’s a subject that has been explored countless times in countless places.  Certain Ethiopian Orthodox churches venerated Pilate as a saint.  Medieval European plays show him as a bureaucrat or a demon.  There are non-canonized writings that add much to the Pilate story, good and bad.

For me, I’ve found myself doing what many do:  projecting my own self onto a vacuum of evidence.  When something in history seems to have no answers, people tend to fill the void with their own agendas, and I’m no exception.  And thus we see that in some cases, when we judge the morality of others, we are actually looking at ourselves.  “Our people” I’ve noticed have somewhat of a love affair with judging the morality of those not within our stewardship (Richard Dutcher!  Brother Marriott!  Kirby Heyborne!  Emma Smith!).

In my life I have stopped wondering about the morality of others so much anymore, yet I still think of him now and then.  Thoughts on Poor Pontius Pilate?

Where Does this Presumption of Serious Sin Come From?

When Richard Dutcher, the once-beloved and once-Mormon film maker, announced that he was leaving the Church, he made the following observation:

I have often joked (darkly, and among friends only) that when wandering sheep stray from the fold, Mormons don’t go looking for them. What happens is: somebody climbs up on a really tall tower, takes out a high-powered rifle, gets the poor straying soul in the cross-hairs, and then blows his wandering brain out.

The presumption that a person’s decision to leave the Church must be motivated by serious transgression has deep roots in Mormon culture. As I’ve studied early Mormon history, I’ve been struck that those who had once been among the most faithful laborers in the Church were quickly denounced as “adulterers” as soon as they left it. Oftentimes, these same persons would later re-join the Church just a short time later, and would immediately be restored to the same high office they formerly held. Alleged adulterer one day, returned prodigal Apostle in full fellowship the next.

It seems this presumption of sin arises when someone leaves the Church because we believe a person is entitled to the guidance of the Holy Spirit when he or she is living righteously. So when someone does something that we believe is contrary to what the Holy Spirit would tell someone to do, e.g., leave the Church, we assume it must be because that person has “lost the Spirit” due to some some serious transgression.

However, that assumption seems to overlook the LDS belief that a person can be good, and yet be mistaken in his reasoning or in his perceptions and interpretations of what he believes the Holy Spirit is telling him. After all, the Doctrine & Covenants describes one category of inhabitants of the Terrestrial Kingdom as the “honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.” (D&C 76:75.) It seems LDS scripture acknowledges that a person can be honorable and yet be mistaken or deceived, and that one need not be guilty of serious transgression in order to reach incorrect conclusions about important theological questions.

Why Does This Matter?

There are several reasons why I think Mormons should be concerned about the assumption that those who cite theological differences or personal revelation as their reason for leaving the Church must be guilty of some serious transgression:

1. Such an assumption seems to be a classic example of an “unrighteous judgment” because it is based on speculation rather than known facts;
2. Making such unrighteous judgments about people who leave the Church is likely to further discourage, rather than encourage, such persons to return to the Church;
3. It is fundamentally un-Christian to assume the worst about people, and anyone who has ever been unjustly accused of committing an offense knows how hurtful that can be;
4. When we believe someone is guilty of serious sin, it can inhibit our ability to treat that person with the kindness and love that we, as Christians, are obligated to show them;
5. When we assume serious transgression is the “real” reason behind someone’s departure from the Church, we are essentially writing it off as being all “their problem,” which can mislead us into thinking there is nothing we can do for them;
6. When we assume someone is guilty of serious transgression, we will be more likely to take a “holier-than-thou” approach if and when we do decide to reach out to such a person, which will only confirm their conclusion that the Church is not a place they want to be.

In closing, it seems that if we active Mormons are serious about wanting to recover our “lost sheep,” we could benefit by taking to heart something that Thomas Merton said in the context of loving our enemies:

Do not be too quick to assume that your enemy is an enemy of God just because he is your enemy. . . . Perhaps he fears you because he can find nothing in you of God’s love and God’s kindness and God’s patience and mercy and understanding of the weaknesses of men.

Do not be too quick to condemn the man who no longer believes in God, for it is perhaps your own coldness and avarice, your mediocrity and materialism, your sensuality and selfishness that have killed his faith.

I am particularly interested in hearing the views of active, believing Mormons on this issue. Might someone be sincere and honest in stating that he has left the Church because of theological differences or personal revelation, or is there always some secret vice or other hidden concern (e.g., wanting to drink alcohol, being offended by someone at church), that really explains why they leave?

One final note: because I am an active, believing Mormon who is writing this post for an audience that I presume will mostly be active, believing Mormons, I am writing this post from that point of view. These questions will have obvious answers for those who are not active, believing Mormons, but based on my anecdotal evidence, these questions may not have such obvious, uniform answers for those who are.

Final, final note: please see my clarifying comment #90 below.

• A review of Richard Dutcher’s “States of Grace” with special guest moderator Brian Gibson (major spoiler alert for those who still plan to see the movie!!!!). Otherwise, a great analysis.
• A discussion of a recent New York Times Magazine article entitled, “Orthodox Paradox” with panelist David King Landrith (DKL).

One program note:

• Near the end, Rosalynde mentions a novel “The Ladies Auxiliary.” Just as an FYI, the author of this book is Tova Mirvis.

Thanks again to all who participated!!!

Please let us know your thoughts!