From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V2 #242 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Friday, January 9 2004 Volume 02 : Number 242 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:36:51 -0600 From: Jonathan Langford Subject: [AML] Critiquing Too Much? (was: Acting and Movie Directing) Anne wrote: >Maybe if we all enjoyed more, and criticized less we'd be >healthier and happier. Okay, I know there's a place for critiques--but all >the time? Over everything? It makes my stomach knot. Ooops! Is that what >this list is all about? To which I reply (speaking only for myself): Yes, there's more to good literary response than just pointing out the bad--but I think that the critiques I've seen over AML-List have done that, in large part. Some people have trashed a particular piece of work; others have praised it. Most often, there's been a combination of comments: the work did well at this; it did poorly at that; it reflected this particular interesting Mormon mindset; it failed to reflect what I see as the Mormon experience in this way. Et cetera. And yes, I think that AML-List *is* the place for that kind of discussion. Not just pointing out the negative, but definitely analyzing, assessing, commenting on what is good and bad in the art (particularly literary art in all its varieties, including movies) that falls under the umbrella of Mormon art. Now, personally, I think that whenever a piece of literature is popular, we need to very carefully analyze why it's popular--what need it's serving. And I tend to believe that popularity is a sign that *something* has been done right, even if our critical theories can't account for it. But that's only my perspective. On the larger question, though: I agree that uncritical appreciation and enjoyment has its place--but that's not, in my view, what AML-List is really all about. Even approval, as I see it, is better if it's backed up by specifics--by analysis of what worked and why. I agree that we need to respect the different views that different people express about a particular work of art, but I can't really agree that we ought to be doing less critiquing here. ("Critiquing" meaning not just pointing out negative things, but analyzing the experience.) Jonathan Langford Speaking for myself, not AML-List jlangfor@pressenter.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:24:06 -0700 From: "Eric SWEDIN" Subject: RE: [AML] Cedar Fort Offer on My Manuscript Everyone, I have eagerly awaited and read each of your responses, both on-list and off-list, to my Cedar Fort posting. Your advice and stories have been very useful, though I have still not made up my mind. Some recommended that I try the self-publishing route, and while I understand why that is a good path for some, it is not a path for me. Thanks, Eric G. Swedin Weber State University http://www.swedin.org/ eswedin@weber.edu - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V2 #242 ******************************