DiscussMormonism.com

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cf ... rmons-7033

Unfortunately, the full review -- which is quite negative -- is not fully available on-line to New Criterion non-subscribers without a charge.

Daniel Peterson wrote:http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Ethel-Mormons-7033

Unfortunately, the full review -- which is quite negative -- is not fully available on-line to New Criterion non-subscribers without a charge.

Have you seen it?

Buffalo wrote:Have you seen it?

I have not.

I haven't been in New York City since before its opening night.

But I've read innumerable reviews and innumerable articles about it, pro et con, and, anyhow, I know a good movie/music/book/theater review when I read one, even if, ultimately, I don't agree.

This is a good review.

Hello,

Unfortunately, the full review -- which is quite negative...

This is a good review.

V/R
Dr. Cam

I have the musical in question, and I thought it was quite brilliant. The show has a message I do not agree with, but it delivers that message in a hilarious and sweet way that is sure to melt the heart of most people in the audience.


The death of blasphemy and good manners is the birth of self-expression.

Daniel Peterson wrote:http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Ethel-Mormons-7033

Unfortunately, the full review -- which is quite negative -- is not fully available on-line to New Criterion non-subscribers without a charge.

I'm confused. You're providing a link (and little commentary) to an article that most of us cannot read? I don't get it.

malaise wrote:The death of blasphemy and good manners is the birth of self-expression.

"Self-expression," which may or may not be the supreme artistic value, has co-existed with conceptions of blasphemy and good manners for many centuries. I do not believe that it was invented recently.

Morley wrote:I'm confused. You're providing a link (and little commentary) to an article that most of us cannot read? I don't get it.

You now know that it's out there, and how to get access to it if you desire. That's called information, and it isn't, I think, especially confusing.

Obscenity is dead. The second thing is this: Blasphemy is dead. If you’re in the épater le bourgeois racket, you’re going to have to come up with something better.

QFT

Daniel Peterson wrote:But I've read innumerable reviews and innumerable articles about it, pro et con, and, anyhow, I know a good movie/music/book/theater review when I read one, even if, ultimately, I don't agree.

This is a good review.

Based on what? You're being pretty stingy with the details, Dr. Peterson. Based on what you've said here, it seems like the main criterion for judging it "a good review" is simply that it was "quite negative" towards a musical that makes fun of Mormonism.

Daniel Peterson wrote:

Morley wrote:I'm confused. You're providing a link (and little commentary) to an article that most of us cannot read? I don't get it.

You now know that it's out there, and how to get access to it if you desire. That's called information, and it isn't, I think, especially confusing.

Is there, in our round world (I think this is something default...) who pays for a review of a performance he/she can not or doesn't want watch?

To be precise:

- I will watch the musical, when it will be available in Europe (or to download...), because it is something cultural
- You have paid for the review and don't want to see the item itself (imagine a personal attack - self censored here...)