Before I get started, it's been a while since I've written one of these posts, so let me brielfy review my Erotic in LDS Lit posts so interested new readers can get the lay of the sexy sexy land:
- The Erotic in LDS Lit Part I: Why? (I introduce the topic in response to an excellent Dialogue article by Levi Peterson. Includes longhaul trucks and flowcharts.)
The Erotic in LDS Lit: Part II: Jorgensen's Take (I continue the discussion with an article that responded to Peterson's. Includes poison or the lack thereof.)
The Erotic in LDS Lit Part III: Test Case (I discuss an excellent novella by Todd Robert Petersen.)
The Erotic in LDS Lit Part III.V: Breaking down the controversy over Angel Falling Softly (Or, Theric is always right.)
The Erotic in LDS Lit Part IV: The Sex Talk (Nonfiction sex.)
The Erotic in LDS Lit Part V: Can there be a “Moral Pornography”? (Maybe. And that's my final answer.)
The Erotic in LDS Lit Part VI: Theric replies to your questions and comments (a) (yes)
The Erotic in LDS Lit Part VII: Theric replies to your questions and comments (b) (no)
The Erotic in LDS Lit Part VIII: Theric replies to your questions and comments (c) (maybe so)
The Erotic in LDS Lit Part IX: What I heard in General Conference (And at the end of those articles, the prophets spoke. Specifically, Elaine S. Dalton and Richard G. Scott.)
(all lds eros posts, literary or not)
In the new issue of Irreantum is an article by Mr Jorgensen, star of Part II as listed above, titled "Reading About Sex in Mormon Fiction --- If We Can Read". Yay, right?
No. Not yay. I'm sorry to say this new article of his is borderline pointless. As Tyler described it, it is "kind of condescending". Jorgensen's working assumption seems to be that no one in his audience has ever ever ever considered the possibility of "sex", "Mormon" and "fiction" appearing in the same sentence. So I suppose I should recognize that I and my fellow Thutopians must not be his target audience. But still. What a boring, pointless read this was.
Taking figures provided in the article and doing some basic arithmetic, I can figure that ol' Bruce is now about 65 so maybe he has old-man interwebz ignorance, but I wish he had recognized his grandfatherly role in this discussion and brought some innovation to bear instead of delighting in rehashed tired thoughts. (And on top of that he driveby insults Anita Stansfield and her readers. Come on.)
For Mr. J's information, since he and Levi appeared in Dialogue lo these many years ago --- or even better, since I responded to them last year --- there has been plenty written on the subject. Just at my ehome-away-from-ehome, Tyler and Laura have both initiated fruitful discussions; and, although I haven't followed them as closely, similar angles have been attacked on some of the even-bigger Mormon blogs. So just mentioning sex isn't enough to make you cutting edge anymore.
What I wish is that he would hop online and read up and then engage us in discussion. Because the discussion has matured. We're not in 101 anymore. We're ready to engage in graduate work.
So engage us.