A listener recently left a comment on our first episode, which gave us a few things to think about. We've decided to post her comment as well as our reply here for those who are interested to read. We like to hear feedback, and are interested in the opinions of other listeners out there on some of the topics this listener addresses. Email us at femfunpodcast@gmail.com or comment on this posting and we'll chat when we upload our next episode (which should be tomorrow!).
Her Comment
I just recently found your podcasts and the name intrigued me so I decided to listen. I started with your first one and was excited since I've actually read the book you were discussing. Only a few minutes in though I had to stop. It wasn't intelligent book club type discussion but just plain mean commentary. As I clicked through a few more podcasts I couldn't believe that you had already dedicated 7 whole hours to so much hate, anger, judgment, cruelty, and destruction of someone else's art. I was so angry and hurt for the author but didn't want to do to you girls what you had done to her, so I closed your blog. But then today I watched this Ted talk about public humiliation and shaming and didn't want to stay silent. I would encourage you girls to watch it as well. http://youtu.be/H_8y0WLm78U
Our Reply
Anna,
Thank
you so much for taking the time to comment; we’re glad to see that more than
just those within our immediate circle of friends are listening to our podcast.
We’d like to take this opportunity to address some of the issues you mentioned
in your statement.
Your
first critique of the show is its lack of an “intelligent book club type
discussion.” While critiquing the literature itself was one our objectives, it
was not one of our main goals. Rather, we are using Johnson’s novel as a way to
launch ourselves into a discussion about Mormon culture and stereotypes we feel
are propelled by her work. However, we also talk about the literature—about her
writing style, about character development, about plot points and their use for
the story as a whole—which are all things that we feel should be included in a
book club discussion. In this case, we feel our podcast is in fact, a book club
discussion—just not one that fit your expectations. (You should also know that
we discuss the positive as well as the negative—see the end of Episode Nine).
You
also mentioned that you clicked through a few more podcasts and “couldn’t
believe that [we] had already dedicated 7 whole hours to so much hate, anger,
judgment, and cruelty, and destruction of someone else’s art.” We’re saddened
that you did not do more than “click through” a few of our episodes rather than
listening fully to what we had to say before you yourself passed judgment. If
you had given yourself the chance to listen to our podcast in full, you would
have heard us talk about a few things. We’ve listed them here, along with the
episode so you can hear us first hand:
·
We will not talk
about Johnson herself—only her novel. (Episode Nine)
What
you failed to realize was that we are critiquing Johnson’s art—not Johnson
herself. We believe, as literary critics, that critiquing art does not
necessarily inflict judgment upon the author itself. This was never our
intention. Oscar Wilde said it best in his essay, “The Critic as Artist.” The
essay details the conversation of two men, during which one asks the other,
“What is the use of. . . criticism? Why cannot the artist be left alone, to
create a new world if he wishes it. . . Why should the artist be troubled by
the shrill clamor of criticism? Why should those who cannot create take upon
themselves to estimate the value of creative work? What can they know about
it?”
The
reply to this question comes in several forms, among them “Without the critical
faculty, there is no artistic creation.” But perhaps it is best expressed in
these lines:
"There
has never been a creative age that has not been critical also. For it is the
critical faculty that invents fresh forms. The tendency of creation is to
repeat itself. It is to the critical instinct that we owe each new school that
springs up, each new mold that art finds ready to its hand.”
Criticism
is necessary for art to flourish. Johnson, like other authors (Wilde himself
included), offered a chance for commentary, both positive and negative, by
publishing her work. This is the plight of all artists, whether through a brush
or a keyboard. We realize that creating art is difficult. We ourselves are
writers, creators, artists. We too gave people a chance to comment on our work,
a freedom which you have just exercised. Our form of criticism is not meant to
attack the author personally (this is called an ad hominum argument), but the art itself.
This
brings us to the TED talk you shared with us. The speech by Monica Lewinsky did
not deal with the criticism of art, which is the kind of criticism we engage in
during our show. She speaks about personal attacks—ad hominum arguments—and the damage they cause. We do not dispute the
claims she makes about how devastating those terrible, individualized messages
can be. But we also feel no responsibility in this manner for what we have
said. We have not messaged Johnson personally to tell her we dislike her book.
We have not said anything unwarranted or unkind about her as a person, merely
as an author. And while we own our opinions and state at the beginning of every
episode that they do not reflect those of the Church or those of BYU, they are
our opinions. We accept responsibility for them, but we also feel they have a
right to be said.
Hopefully
you can see, at least in part, that this was our goal in starting the program.
Thank you again for taking the time to listen to a part of our show.
Best,
Kate & Madie
