Eugene the Guileless

Some individuals embody entire scriptural concepts. Eugene England, for example, wonderfully illuminates that famous passage of scripture, “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by . . . kindness, and pure knowledge.” Gene’s boundless, Christ-like charity, generosity of spirit, and kindness demonstrated in his life and in his influence upon all of us who associated with him in the field of Mormon belles lettres that such “kindness, and pure knowledge” indeed “shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile” (D&C 121:41–42).

Eugene England’s guileless nature shaped his literary criticism and has enlarged his soul—and the souls of all of us who rubbed shoulders with him.

In his loving generosity Eugene always (and sometimes maddeningly) assumed only the purest and best of intentions in others and sought evidences of such pure intent in their work. In fact, any differences of literary opinion that I ever had with Eugene arose from instances where my opinion of the poem or story or novel assumed mischievous or even malignant intent on the part of the author, while Eugene invariably assumed a lofty, noble, and uplifting intent.

In several instances my (carnal, sensuous, and devilish) reading would later be affirmed by the author as indeed reflecting his original purpose (yes, I’m being evasive); but in at least one notable instance that same author, while confessing earthy intent, would acknowledge that Gene’s dogged ability to find heavenly intent had elevated the author’s vision and art and altered his intent.

Eugene was firmly based in his literary opinions, but he was ever open to others’ opinions and kind—even to the most wrongheaded student. And while he was free in expressing responsible disagreement, as when he chastens Wallace Stegner for his facile dismissal of Mormon theology (see his essay in the 2001 issue of Literature and Belief), Gene was scrupulously careful in articulating others’ positions—sometimes stating those positions better than the individuals themselves. For example, in his brilliant bibliographical essay, “Mormon Literature: Progress and Prospects,” in David J. Whittaker’s Mormon Americana (1995), Eugene sums up my own discomfiture with some contemporary Mormon writing better than I have ever done. In his generous and thoughtful way, he invited many writers and scholars from across the spectrum of Mormon letters to speak to his Mormon literature classes at BYU and UVSC; and while each of us knew that we were being introduced by a monumental figure in Mormon letters, Eugene made us and his students feel that we and our views were important and vital. Through his kindness, friendship, and zest for pure knowledge, Eugene England blessed and changed us all and exemplified the words of the Psalmist, “blessed is the man . . . in whose spirit there is no guile” (Ps. 32:2).

—Richard H. Cracroft
from Irreantum 3.3 (Autumn 2001): 27–28