http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2002-2006 by the authors Sat, 3 Jun 2006 01:18:46 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/18/083350.php#comment-380973 Excellent comments! I love the show. I have been watching the show with my 3 exchange students and American son, ages 17 to 24. They are all hooked, too. We have had great discussions on various (mostly negative) aspects of polygamy in different societies. Even more interesting is their reaction to the LDS Church as portrayed on the series. They are all very intrigued with the lifestyle presented, even my son, who has never been interested before. Big Love could turn out a boon for the LDS image. While I have never been interested in becoming a Morman, I grew up in Northern Arizona and know them as great neighbors and admirable friends. I think that Big Love clearly delineates between LDS and polygamist sects, and displays many of the positive aspects of the LDS community while poking gentle fun as well (who really enjoys being lectured by self-righteous teens - whether LDS missionaries or goths!) I think that Big Love is great entertainment, but I think it also teaches. While I want to hiss at "Roman" my heart aches at the distress of "Sara," and "Rhonda" gives me chills. The actors are outstanding and the script even more so. In my own house Big Love has lead to more discussion than any other show. This is a good thing. For those interested, I recommend UNDER THE BANNER OF HEAVEN as a companion book. ]]> 380973@blogcritics.org Sat, 3 Jun 2006 01:18:46 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/18/083350.php#comment-345070 The reasons Mormons have misgivings about "Big Love" are unfortunately (and, no doubt, inadvertently) illustrated even in your well thought-out review. It is incorrect to say that the "mainstream church" forbade polygamy. Rather, the "Mormon Church" forbade polygamy. Groups that continue to practice polygamy are not Mormon any more than Lutherans are Catholic. The Associated Press style guidelines, sundry dictionaries, and predominant colloquial usage indicate that "Mormon" is to be used only in connection with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Polygamist groups are by definition not associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and are thus not "Mormon". In fact, polygamist groups have in recent years bombed multiple Mormon buildings and continually made death threats against Mormon leaders. (For this reason, my own preferred term for polygamist groups is "anti-Mormon".) It is little wonder that Mormons no not wish to be associated with polygamist groups. Indeed, perpetuation of the incorrect association between Mormons and polygamist groups leads well-intentioned people such as commenter John Spivey to rely on entrenching heuristics in discussing relevant "facts" (in fact, Utah is consistently at about the national norm for divorce rates, but the divorce figure is much lower for practicing Mormon Utahns -- I haven't looked into spousal abuse figures, but I can say that in the U.S., Mormon women are more likely to attain a college degree than women of any other religious persuasion other than Jewish women, a fact that is inconsistent with typical patterns of spousal abuse). ]]> 345070@blogcritics.org Mon, 3 Apr 2006 09:22:55 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/18/083350.php#comment-336430 A good well-written intelligent post. Thanks for that. As a side note, I belive that Utah is one of the leaders in the U.S. for divorce rate and spousal abuse. Fundamentalism of any stripe only ends up abusing its adherents. ]]> 336430@blogcritics.org Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:43:45 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/18/083350.php#comment-336419 @ Ashok - hey, thanks! I just have a tendency to mouth off in any and every case. And yes, you did outdo me on that tag! :) @ Victor - You're right about that polyandry thing but I'd pay money [on top of the extortionate amount charged as it is] to see it. I guess the problem with the whole gay/polygamy issue, is that nuance can often be dismissed as sophistry, especially in high octane 'discussions' about sensitive topics. That said, I totally agree with you. ]]> 336419@blogcritics.org Sat, 18 Mar 2006 12:23:29 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/18/083350.php#comment-336403 Good to see you around, Ashok:) ]]> 336403@blogcritics.org Sat, 18 Mar 2006 11:53:22 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/18/083350.php#comment-336389 Nice post, Amrita. I do have a little trouble with polygamy and its ramifications. The difference with the call for gay marriages is that two people want to commit to ONE relationship. In the end, marriage is really a confirmation of the importance of love between two people (whether gay or straight) and a firm binding of that love legally (and perhaps in the eyes of one's god). I'm not quite sure what message this kind of thing sends about one man being married to three women. All I know is that a show about one woman being married to three men wouldn't ever make it onto TV, even dear old HBO. ]]> 336389@blogcritics.org Sat, 18 Mar 2006 11:19:48 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/18/083350.php#comment-336365 Nice review. Nicely balanced, despite the potentially provocative subject of polygamy and religious cults. I like the fact that you weren't afraid to mention your personal views, while retaining a more genial general outlook. As for 'too cute' bios, here's my topper: 'Ashok loves reading, writing, writing about reading, and reading about writing.' Howzatt! :~) ]]> 336365@blogcritics.org Sat, 18 Mar 2006 09:04:51 EST