.png)
A few months ago, James Goldberg took apart a play by Mahonri Stewart. (It's not the only thing he dismantled, but unlike the other authors, Mahonri is the only one currenly active in the cultural corners of the Bloggernacle.) Chaos erupted. But whether you're one of Mahonri's agitprops or a conscientious objector to Mahonri's work (we've many in both camps, of course), James's main argument strikes me as undeniable.
. . . I don’t think most of us want Mormon Literature to be a playground game. I think we want to take craft seriously and take our role in society seriously---and that means we have to acknowledge that there are about a million things that can go wrong aesthetically or ethically with a piece. So unless Mormon writers are gods, there ought to be at least a few things in every story that we can and should call out and comment on.For how else shall we grow?
I review a lot of Mormon art (this tag is not yet fully populated) (not all of these are reviews) and I've pulled punches then been lambasted for being mean and taken off the gloves and been ignored and offered plain criticisms and been thanked. I do not, however, think I've consistently met James's goal to be one of the "others . . . willing to call out . . . work in equal plainness." I haven't often been as specific as James in my diagnosis, so how useful is what I say?
And, as we saw from his post, not everyone really takes to that sort of precise criticism.
Which is a shame, because I think that's what we need more of.
Some points. First, who knows if anyone will ever read and review Byuck? Second, if they do, are they more likely to be one of those who love the book or one of those who find it offensive to all that is good and pure in life---and either/or, will the be usefully critical? Third, how worthy of attention is it anyway? I'm hardly the best judge of that. Fourth, would such a criticism be useful only to me or to us generally?
But I think the real issue (and we saw this in James's post) is that, as I am well ensconced among those most likely to write about the book, who can say who will be willing to say what, knowing I will hear?
This is a nonspecific-to-Byuck question I open to all.
Are we getting a little too inbred in MoLit? Do we have sufficient genetic diversity? Is there enough violence to ensure evolution?
I want you to tell me.
Entering to win a copy is the closest I've come to reading Byuck. But in light of your generous request, I'll officially issue an IOU to respond in gloveless writing to the work sometime this calendar year.
ReplyDeleteYou might have to remind me about this promise come summer if I don't get to it this next semester. But count me in.
.
ReplyDeleteSounds good. I'm planning to read your book too, so the first one out gets to claim the other's feelings were just hurt. </joke>
I fully intend to review Byuck as soon as I can get my hands on a print copy. I thought about buying the e-book, but it sounds like the kind of book I'd rather have on my bookshelf than buried in my Kindle.
ReplyDeleteBut I've been thinking a lot about what you bring up in this post--especially after reading Patrick Mason's article about the Bloggernacle in the most recent issue of Dialogue. In it, one of the bloggers he quotes talks about how Mormon blogs often become echo chambers wherein we end up affirming what other people write rather than challenging their assumptions of demanding more thorough or nuanced treatments of topics. (I see this happening especially in the more partisan blogs.) In some ways, I don't see this happening as much on the Mormon Lit blogs, although I agree that we could all do better. I personally try to avoid vain praise--especially when it goes unaccompanied by fair criticism--but I confess to going easy on some writers or letting my enthusiasm for a work get the better or my objectivity.
I think the Goldberg-Stewart debate has been instructive in the sense that it has shown us how to and how not to closely critique a work. Both James and Mahonri raised specific, valid points about the others' work--which is what we need to do--but I also got a sense that there was more going on--something more personal--beneath the surface, especially with (but not limited to) Mahonri's review of The Five Books of Jesus. I don't think we do Mormon lit and Mormon lit crit any favors when we let criticism get personal--both when we praise a work or criticize it. I'm in favor of keeping it about the literature for now. Maybe after Mormon literature is more established and there are Norton Critical Editions of Nephi Anderson's and Susa Young Gates' works we can begin to throw around some well-meaning ad hominems.
But, again, I don't think the online MoLit scene should be another bloggernacle echo chamber. Let's leave that to the ideologues.
.
DeleteYes. We are artists! We are better than politics and martial sidesteppery!
.
DeleteI've been thinking about this and wondering if maybe I don't agree as much as I thought I did. The DB/Cvt crew seem pretty separate from the AML/AMV crew. The old timers don't interact with the new wave. I mean---look at the things Jettboy says when he comes by. He admits to little knowledge and strong opinions. And as for DB/Cvt, I've repented of my strong opinions, but I still possess little knowledge.
BYUck is on my kindle. I will read and review it, but I am not sure many pay attention to my reviews. I will pull no punches in my review, if you wish. The trouble with being a writer of LDS fiction is that the genre really is a young one, and a lot of shifting themes and experimenting is going on. One wants to encourage those who risk. I just read a book that I loved for some reasons, but winced at for others. Editing, for instance, not there. And moments of it were less maturely-written than others. But I gave it a 4-star review because I could see what the writer was trying to do and I felt, for the most part, she'd accomplished it, and compared to the LDS literature on the market, hers was head and shoulders, quality and originality-wise.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the statement above by Goldberg. So, Theric, I hope when you read my story you pull no punches in your review, and I'd love it extra if you wrote me a letter telling me how to improve my writing :) :) one can dream....
.
DeleteWe do need to do this for each other but you're right that publicly might not always be the best place. And that we should nurture as part of our critical goal.
That exactly, yes.
Delete