Good Review of "The Book of Mormon" Musical

[_Kishkumen]

Like you, I'm wondering what Peterson's point is....

Does he feel that other musicals on stage this year should have won, in lieu of "The Book of Mormon"?

Is he trying to suggest that "Book of Mormon" (a play Peterson's admitted he hasn't seen) wasn't well written or quality theatre, even if he disagrees with what it teaches?

Well, Dr. Peterson would undoubtedly agree that what constitutes a classic is a matter of opinion. Sam Clemens can call the Book of Mormon chloroform in print, but Jack Welch can devote his time to finding chiasmus in the same text. Some may find the Quran inferior to the Bible, but this, too, is a matter of personal viewpoint. Surely some can find great enjoyment in the Book of Mormon musical and yet escape the opprobrium of Dr. Peterson for daring to celebrate its Tony awards. Not every musical can be a Tolstoy. ;-)

[_Morley]

And nine Tonys later......! Yup, you sure can spot a good review!!!

It was a good review!!!!! No matter how many Tonys the play won!!!!!

Popularity may or may not correspond to quality!!!! Prizes may or may not accurately indicate merit!!!!! Leo Tolstoy was passed over ten (10) times for the Nobel Prize prior to his death, and the prize was given, instead, to such eminent writers as Bjørnstjerne Martinus Bjørnson (1903), Henryk Sienkiewicz (1905), Giosuè Carducci (1906), Rudolf Christoph Eucken (1908), Selma Ottillia Lovisa Lagerlöf (1909), and Paul Johann Ludwig Heyse (1910)!!!!! You're probably the only person, though, who would argue that their Nobel Prizes prove that they were greater authors than Tolstoy!!!!

Only in Dogpatch, eh Joey??????!!!!!!

Daniel Peterson: Winner of the Award for the Most Superfluous Use of Exclamation Points by an Academic.

[_Morley]

And nine Tonys later......! Yup, you sure can spot a good review!!!

You're probably the only person, though, who would argue that their Nobel Prizes prove that they were greater authors than Tolstoy!!!!

Where and how did Joey argue (or even imply) this? I reread both his post and yours, but missed it somehow.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Joey didn't really claim it!!!!!! I was funn'n the guy!!!!!!!

It deserved those awards - it's a terrific show!

Maybe. I haven't seen it.

Or maybe not. Perhaps it was just the tallest building in Tooele, the highest mountain in Kansas, this year.

I mean, consider the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1962. Lawrence of Arabia won it. Not bad. I won't quibble. But it had to beat out The Longest Day, The Music Man (which some argue is the greatest American musical ever), Mutiny on the Bounty, and To Kill a Mockingbird in order to take the Oscar. In other years, though -- and you can take your pick -- the fields have been considerably weaker, and the achievement of the winner, accordingly, rather less impressive.

Hello Mr. Peterson,

Oh my. You certainly just had one of the most amazing meltdowns I've ever witnessed an esteemed Professor of Middle Eastern Stuides has had.

Wow. I mean... Wow.

V/R
Dr. Cameron

LOL.

Whoooooosh.

I am left wondering exactly what your point is.

It's the one I stated. Prizes may or may not correlate with merit. Joey's implicit claim that nine Tonys prove the New Criterion review wrong rests on a non sequitur.

If popularity (as registered by either prize votes or tickets sold) accurately tracks merit, Spiderman, Wicked, and The Lion King are beating The Book of Mormon in terms of box office receipts despite its enormous recent hype, and, therefore, must be better plays. On the other hand, The Book of Mormon is absolutely killing Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest, which must, on that account, be markedly inferior.

OK, we can agree that Stone & Parker are not Tolstoy.

Nor -- and I'm going to stick my neck out here -- is Cole Porter.

I tend to regard most musicals (there are some exceptions) as forgettable fluff. And that includes even some of the most famous ones. I liked Doubt and The Seafarer, for example (a couple of things I've seen on Broadway in the past decade or so), much better than I've ever cared for The Drowsy Chaperone or even Anything Goes. And I passionately dislike Carousel. On the other hand, I absolutely loved the fabulous London production that I saw of Copenhagen.

No matter how many prizes any of these plays received or didn't receive.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Daniel Peterson: Winner of the Award for the Most Superfluous Use of Exclamation Points by an Academic.

I'm delighted that you noticed!!!!!!!

[_Kishkumen]

I am left wondering exactly what your point is.

It's the one I stated. Prizes may or may not correlate with merit. Joey's implicit claim that nine Tonys prove the New Criterion review wrong rests on a non sequitur.

If popularity (as registered by either prize votes or tickets sold) accurately tracks merit, Spiderman, Wicked, and The Lion King are beating The Book of Mormon in terms of box office receipts despite its enormous recent hype, and, therefore, must be better plays. On the other hand, The Book of Mormon is absolutely killing Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest, which must, on that account, be markedly inferior.

Judging merit, as you have elsewhere observed, and rightly, is tricky business. The same applies to this review. We all tend to praise the critics whose views accord with our own.

OK, we can agree that Stone & Parker are not Tolstoy.

Nor -- and I'm going to stick my neck out here -- is Cole Porter.

Exactly.

I tend to regard most musicals (there are some exceptions) as forgettable fluff.

*****

No matter how many prizes any of these plays received or didn't receive.

I couldn't agree more.

[Guest]

The same applies to this review. We all tend to praise the critics whose views accord with our own.

Speak for yourself--not "all" of us tend to praise the critics who's views accord with our own.

Earlier in this thread, as well as on MDD, I praised the calibur of the review Dan Peterson posted, despite having a diametrically-opposed opinion of the play and the stance of his review, itself.

Daniel2

[Edited: Sorry for my earlier mis-attribution of the quote to the wrong poster]

[_Kishkumen]

The same applies to this review. We all tend to praise the critics whose views accord with our own.

Speak for yourself--not "all" of us tend to praise the critics who's views accord with our own.

I praised the calibur of the review you posted, despite having a diametrically-opposed opinion of the play and the stance of his review, itself.

Daniel2

Hey, Daniel2. I, Kishkumen, actually made that statement. I think the word "tend" is a sufficient qualification. Not everyone always agrees with the people who think exactly as they do, but I think a lot of people do a lot of the time.

Maybe I shouldn't have said "we all" but "many people."

[_Baker]

For those that missed the awards show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... mrR8#at=66

[_moksha]

I did think the reference Chris Rock made in his presentation of the Best Musicals that everyone already knew who would win so why stretch out the proceedings, making it "like taking a hooker to dinner first" was a bit tasteless. A much better analogy would have been, "like Brigham Young taking time to chit-chat with Mary Ann, when he could be on his way to the after awards party with Amelia".