Bound on Earth: A Review
I recently read Angela Hallstrom’s book Bound on Earth. I enjoyed it. The book tracks the growth of a Mormon family during the latter half of the last century to the present day (with a cameo appearance from a pioneer ancestor). It provides a frank illustration of the real struggles we face to reconcile our unique LDS faith in eternal families with the reality of dealing with family members in painfully intractable situations.
What I enjoyed most about the book was Hallstrom’s pitch-perfect description of Mormon life.
Reading Bound brought back vivid memories of my childhood in a predominantly-Mormon small town in Utah, of sitting in Sacrament Meeting with my parents, the lazy Sunday afternoons after Church when all was right with the world.
I loved Hallstrom’s description of a fast and testimony meeting. In this passage, a little girl, Marnie, waits nervously for the deacon to walk around the pews to her with the microphone, the long black cord trailing behind him:
Marnie grasps the microphone.
“I’d like to bear my testimony,” she says. “I know this church is true.”
She notices the heads turning back around and away from her as people shift in their seats to face forward again. This ward knows Marnie, knows what she will say – what she always says – and while it’s charming and sweet, it’s hardly dramatic. They get back to shushing their children, thumbing through their lesson manuals, closing their eyes.
How many of us growing up in a traditional Church-going, Mormon family can relate to this heady experience of shyly, yet firmly, bearing our young testimonies to the congregation?
Hallstrom’s vivid descriptions of Mormon life is also the flipside of what I found lacking in Bound. Hallstrom’s writing opens up the world of mental illness, impervious gender roles, and general teenage rebellion to devout Mormons, but a non-Mormon reading this book would have difficulty, I think, picking up the nuances that make this book so enjoyable for Mormons.
Take the testimony meeting description, for example. Without being steeped in the knowledge of the logistics and protocols of testimony meeting, I’m not sure Marnie’s nervousness and the significance of “bearing” her testimony would be fully conveyed.
As such, I think Bound runs the risk of being too insular, and too simplistic, Ensign-storyish. We are given an indication that the troubled young marriage survives, but I hungered for the real story behind their apparent reconcilation. And I needed more details about their continuing struggle after Kyle’s final return.
Perhaps Hallstrom tries to do too much in 197 short pages. For her next literary endeavor, I’d suggest she add a few hundred pages so that she can take the time to show her readers, Mormon and non-Mormon alike, what it is like to be bound together as a Mormon family. All in all, however, I enjoyed the book and would recommend it.
Thanks for the review. I rarely read LDS fiction, but if there’s something good out there, I like to know about it.
Comment by madhousewife — March 13, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
Mormon literature always presents a unique challenge. I suppose it’s the same for other literature with a religious aspect, too, but because the wider community is probably more familiar with (for instance) Catholicism, it’s probably a bit easier to write for a Catholic audience; whereas, if you write a Mormon story for a non-Mormon audience, you run the risk of really boring the Mormon readers.
I suppose Mormonism is like any culture - you have to be a part of it to really get it. I’m thinking of the “Angels in America” miniseries here. Meryl Streep was so off with her performance of a depressed Mormon woman in a myriad of ways that I don’t think non-Mormons would have appreciated, but it ruined the series for me. I guess the trick is making it broad enough that it includes/involves people who don’t share the same cultural background, while still narrow enough that it targets people from that cultural background in a way they can relate to (and not get offended by).
Comment by Quimby — March 13, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
I think this happens because most LDS authors are writing to/for an LDS audience and they just assume that the audience will fill in the nuances with their experiences. I have this problem in my own writing. When I use my own life experiences to tell a story I have to remember to look at them from an outsider’s view point or I leave too much unsaid.
Comment by Liz — March 13, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
Liz, Quimby - I think your observations about Mormon lit are correct, but we have seen the gulfs in religious knowledge bridged by novels such as The Chosen (I knew nothing about Judiasm when I read that book). Potok’s is a high standard, but I believe Mormons can reach it.
Comment by ECS — March 13, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
Is it bad form for the author to pop in and comment after a review? I hope not. But I did want to first thank ECS for her thoughtful review. I’m glad that she enjoyed the novel, and I appreciate her constructive criticism.
I agree with Quimby that it can be difficult to write about religion–any religion. Mormonism, in particular, is a mysterious religion to so many, and I made the decision early on while writing Bound on Earth that the doctrinal and cultural explication necessary to fully include a more general audience would have taken away from the particular conversation I wanted to have with my own culture.
I agree that the decision to write primarily for the LDS audience is a limiting one, and perhaps even an “insular” one–although I hope it isn’t. The last thing I want to be is exclusionary, and I would be thrilled if readers of all stripes took a chance on the book. I have had readers without much of a background in Mormonism respond favorably to Bound, and while non-LDS readers might not have the same experience with the novel that LDS readers would, perhaps these readers might be able to find something of value there. Something universal.
And “Ensign-storyish”! Oh no! Not that! Perhaps I can take heart in the fact that she said the novel “runs the risk” of being that kind of a story? Because that’s certainly the type of story I wanted to avoid telling. I understand ECS’s word of caution, though. It’s decidedly tough to walk the literary tightrope and find despair looming in the pit beneath you on one side, and sentimentality on the other. I tried to balance between the two the best I could.
So now I’ll shut up. Thank you again, ECS, for your review. And I’ll check back with you in a couple of years when (hopefully) my big, fat novel for a general audience is done!
Comment by Angela H. — March 13, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
You mention The Chosen - but I think it’s easier in some ways to write about a religion that is such an integral part of life. Mormonism isn’t all-encompassing the way Hasidic, Orthodox, or Ultra-orthodox Judaism is. A better analogy might be writing about reformed Judaism, or perhaps even the experiences of athiest Jews (yes, such people exist), who practise certain aspects of the religion even though they don’t believe in God. There’s a tension there between not believing and still (for example) fasting on Yom Kippur or abstaining from certain foods, that to an outsider would seem totally out of place, but to other Jews, they’d get it.
You’re right, we should constantly be striving for a higher standard, and we should be able to bridge the gulf; but on a practical level I’m not quite sure how you can do that with a religion that doesn’t encompass every single aspect of every interaction.
Comment by Quimby — March 13, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
ECS, you posted while I was posting, and I just wanted to say that I agree with you about Potok. My Name is Asher Lev is one of the best novels about being religious and being an artist ever written. And I agree that it is very possible to write a novel about Mormonism that can reach across all kinds of boundaries. I hope that someday I can write such a novel. With this novel, though, my intention was to tell a story from my culture to my culture–and it’s completely within anyone’s right to question that decision. But I just wanted to make it clear that it was a conscious one.
And thanks again. And NOW I’ll shut up.
Comment by Angela H. — March 13, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
Well, I’ve read a lot of fiction written for and about other groups that I’m not necessarily a part of– Victorian-era mystery novels, for example– and they don’t necessarily have to be edited into generic “everybody can understand” terms in order to be applicable to humanity as a whole. I bet my Protestant friends here in Carolina wouldn’t understand “bearing testimony” in LDS terms, but they know what a testimony is, and would probably equate it with a more common Protestant concept of “testifying” — which would be different, but within the connotation required to understand the passage. I know that when I read about a High Mass, I haven’t experienced it, having seen swaying incense infrequently (ok, once?), but I can get the idea of solemnity. I haven’t ever been to England in the late 1800’s, but I can still enjoy Edwardian society in literature. I might need a lot of end notes to “get” everything, but I can still understand most of the nuances.
I look forward to reading “Bound,” it sounds different… especially if you liked it, Liz! It’s got to be different than the standard bubble-gum pop LDS fiction offerings (which often cause accidental saccharin overdoses if read too frequently) if you even picked it up to read it!
It was written for an LDS audience, though, wasn’t it? I mean, mostly it will be those who at least are familliar with LDS culture who end up buying and reading this book? Is it general fiction or Christian fiction, or LDS–you sounded a bit unsure? And I’m curious- did you like it as “pretty good for a LDS book….” or “I liked it,” meaning as a book in general? I bet lots of us who read popular LDS fiction growing up in the eighties and nineties would agree, those two categories can be REALLY different
I’ve been having a really hard time even wanting to wander NEAR the fiction side of the bookstore (or Amazon,lol) so thanks for a chance to hear about books that I otherwise might be inadvertantly avoiding!
Comment by Nightingale — March 13, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
Oops, I was busy typing and not refreshing- I didn’t see Angela’s post!
Comment by Nightingale — March 13, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
Thanks for this review, ECS!
Great points here about the challenges faced by Mormon authors. To be fair, _Bound On Earth_ was written for an LDS audience, but I understand Hallstrom’s planning on writing for the national market in the future, and I believe she has the vision and talent to do it with flair. I hope she writes more novels for LDS audiences, too–this debut showed me there’s something extra-delicious about skillful, artistic prose written by and for insiders. Hats off to Parables (the publisher) for breaking new ground.
Here’s Hallstrom’s Amazon page, which includes more reviews, including glowing praise by Levi Peterson himself. http://www.amazon.com/Bound-Earth-Angela-Hallstrom/dp/0961496096/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205449074&sr=8-1
Comment by Kathryn Lynard Soper — March 13, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
Dang, I didn’t refresh either! Great to hear from Angela herself.
Nightingale, this novel comes from a completely different dimension than ’90s Mormon genre fiction. Promise.
Comment by Kathryn Lynard Soper — March 13, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
Bound on Earth is far, far, far from the bubble gum pablum of Mormon lit, which is why I was a bit taken aback by the ending. (note: I should have said “Hollywood” ending or something instead of referencing the Ensign, which is much too harsh a comparison.). It’s precisely because the book was so realistic and, well, better written than most (all that I’ve read) Mormon lit, that I thought it was written for a wider audience.
Thanks for clarifying the intended audience, Angela and Kathryn. I’m looking forward to reading more from Angela in the future as well.
Comment by ECS — March 13, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
This has not been my experience. Growing up in a small Utah town, Mormonism was entangled and intertwined with every aspect of public and private life.
Comment by ECS — March 13, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
Angela,
I hope my comment about writing for a particular audience didn’t sound belittling because I didn’t mean it that way =)
#8, I agree that an author with particular life experience shouldn’t have to explain or dumb down their writing just to be able to inform a wider audience. If so, I don’t think Shakespeare, Austin, or Dickens (my currenet favorites so they are on my brain) would be as lovely as they are.
Often time it is the novel, or unexperienced nuances that entice a reader, or make a reader want to broaden their horizons.
I love cross culture reading. And now, before I comment anymore, I must go find this book and actually read it =)
Comment by Liz — March 13, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
I can understand your surprise re the ending, ECS. It could have gone either way. I’m glad Angela went for the up-note, because by that point I’d come to care about the Palmer family so much that I really wanted a feel-good ending.
I hope lots of FMHers check it out. I think this novel has a lot to offer Mormon feminists–the gender characterization breaks several stereotypes in positive ways–as well as anyone who’s been looking for quality Mormon lit.
Comment by Kathryn Lynard Soper — March 13, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
Liz, you didn’t sound belittling at all. You make a very good point, especially as far as LDS lit is concerned.
Comment by Angela H. — March 13, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
Not every piece of LDS genre fiction is bubble-gum pop flavor. I understand that within our culture if it’s not “literary” than that somehow equates to it not being worthwhile. Somehow “good books” has come to mean non-fiction, General Authority works or literary books.
I too read the available ’90s LDS works, excited to have something written by someone who believed what I believed, and found nothing but wall-bangers (i.e., books that had to be banged against the wall to prevent me from doing so with my head). I couldn’t find the sorts of books that I liked to read.
So I put my money where my mouth is and wrote what I wanted to read. Of course now I face the backlash of being dismissed as a silly romance author, and on top of that, horror of all horrors, a silly LDS romance author. I think fiction is important. People remember things from fiction that they won’t remember from reading a non-fiction account. You can gain insights and understanding in a way that has more meaning, that can touch you in a way that dry recitation can’t. There’s a reason Christ did so much of his teaching through parables.
But I don’t expect to do anything particularly earth shattering. I enjoy reading and I enjoy telling stories. My personal purpose has always been to entertain. Because while it’s all well and good to Read Something Very Significant, sometimes in your life you need to escape. My mother needed it desperately when my sister died. She watched romantic comedies so that she could ease her burden for an hour or two. If I could do that for even one person, then I would consider myself successful.
I would say that now’s the time to give LDS fiction another try. If there’s a genre you love - suspense, action, romance, etc., list what you like and I’ll recommend some good authors. You can also take a look at the current Whitney Award nominees (http://www.whitneyawards.com/) for some recommendations as well.
Sorry to threadjack - this is one of those things I feel strongly about. You should have seen me in Relief Society when we started talking about literacy.
Comment by Sariah — March 13, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
I just finished this, and passed it on to a friend.
One aspect of the book bothered me at first, but by the end, had become one of my favorite things about it. It was the changing viewpoints. My initial reaction was that this made the book too choppy. But eventually, I found myself in tears, reminding myself that everyone has a story, everyone in life is the main character. There are no annoying mothers-in-law just there to provide a foil, no silly siblings just there for comedic relief. In real life, we’re each important, we each have a perspective based on our own life experiences, we’re each trying to figure life out.
Hallstrom did a very good job at treating each of these characters as real people. It was a lesson in empathy and compassion for me. Thank you, Angela.
Comment by jane — March 13, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
Good! I’m going to the library tonight - maybe I can find it (there are good things about living in Utah).
#17 - I agree. Fiction is important. I think my disenfranchisement with LDS fiction in the 80s and 90s was that much of it was poorly written. I’m not comparing it to “highbrow literary” standards, but it was poorly written in the fact that everything was perfect. Perfect women. Perfect children. Perfect relationships (or, if they weren’t, they were humorous). I got tired of the saccharin.
I’ve been LDS my whole life - like ECS, I grew up on a small-predominantly LDS town (and I agree - it IS all-encompassing!), but I don’t have (and I doubt anyone does), the “storybook Mormon life” the novels spoke of - seemingly all of them. I still don’t.
I’m excited to read it - the premise (and the story told from varying viewpoints) sounds intriguing.
Comment by Sara — March 14, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
I have to agree with ECS and Sara. Mormon life is all encomapssing. It is a religion and a culture, very much like Judaism. Which is why it would be hard to write a novel similar to Chaim Potok, you have to be ready for the consequences of “outing” your religion, community, family, friends, etc. to the entire world. I always thought it would be difficult to write a novel like The Chosen and have it appreciated by Mormons because it may come off sounding as if it was written by a disaffected Mormon.
Comment by gypsymom — March 14, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
I really think it’s interesting that so many of you think Mormon life is all-encompassing in the same way that Orthodox, Ultra-Orthodox, and Hasidic Judaism are. There are literally hundreds of commandments covering every aspect of daily life - who you can associate with, your personal grooming, what you can eat (and with what), etc. - and these are actual commandments, not culture. Depending on the day, such simple, almost instinctive acts as turning on a light or getting in a car might be forbidden. Now, granted, I’ve only lived in Utah for about 2 years all-up, but I struggle to see the comparison.
Comment by Quimby — March 14, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
And before you bring up the Word of Wisdom, believe me, it’s very different. What did you do last time a friend asked you over for dinner, and you thought that maybe the pot they used was at one time used to cook something with wine in it? Chances are you ate it anyway - after all, it’d been washed. Have you ever tried to cook for someone who keeps kosher - real kosher, not just the casual, “I don’t eat pork” type? It’s next to impossible. Everything has to be purified or replaced. A person practicing kosher can’t use the same plate for meat that they’d use for cheese. That carries over to food preparation too, so you can’t cook a chicken in a pot that once might have been used for milk. In practical terms, most families I know that live by kosher law have two kitchens, because it’s the easiest way to keep everything seperate.
Comment by Quimby — March 14, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
Quimby - You make a good point. I fully agree with you that there are religions even more encompassing than Mormonism (including Mennonite and Amish). However, I do think that Mormonism is “all-encompassing” from a certain standpoint as well.
Perhaps I should use a different term - because I do see where you are trying to make the distinction (and I agree). I do think that as a culture and religion, Mormonism does encompass much of one’s life. No, it doesn’t dictate micro-commandments, but it is all-encompassing as a lifestyle - much more so than the majority of Christian religions.
Comment by Sara — March 14, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
I think when referring to Chaim Potok and the types of literature he wrote regarding his religion, there are a lot of similarities. As I recall, he doesn’t go into all the details of keeping Kosher but touches on the broader idea of how some in the same religion live it differently. I agree though that all-encompassing may be the wrong terminology. I was thinking more of the way in which Mormonism encourages religious practice daily and is a part of the way I live my life every day not just on Sundays or Holidays. And the Word of Wisdom may be relevant. Most Mormons I know don’t properly follow it (myself included), my husband doesn’t drink or smoke or do drugs but when the Bishop asks if he keeps the Word of Wisdom he honestly answers no. But that is probably a whole other discussion.
Comment by gypsymom — March 14, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
I agree with comments made by Sara (#19)– I myself attempted to write an LDS fiction novel that took LDS fiction up a notch for more discerning readers. After 2 years going back and forth with all the LDS publishers, the editors loved it while the marketing committees did not (it was “too intense and real”, I decided to reject Cedar Fort, which wanted me to shell out $2600 to help with costs, and self-publish. The major downfall is that I have no advertising and no shelf space. But I have gotten great reviews in deseret news and lds.files and I’ve done a couple book groups that were amazing discussions. I know I’m not supposed to “plug” but I will say if you like to Bound on Earth, you’ll also like Sunshine by Christy Stevenson.
Comment by Christy — March 16, 2008 @ 10:22 am