The most recent issue of The Mennonite Quarterly Review, January 2013, contains critical and scholarly essays from Mennonite/s Writing VI, the conference held at EMU in March 2012, by Ervin Beck, John J. Fisher, Ann Hostetler, Julia Spicher Kasdorf, Jesse Nathan, Hildi Froese Tiessen and Paul Tiessen, as well as tributes to Ervin Beck, Omar Eby, Al Reimer, Elaine Sommers Rich, and Katie Funk Wiebe. For a table of contents and a link to the article by Julia Spicher Kasdorf, go to http://www.goshen.edu/mqr/pastissues/Jan13.html.
Critical Essays from Mennonite/s Writing VI in MQR
February 10, 2013
Comments for Critical Essays from Mennonite/s Writing VI in MQR
Post a comment
Sorry, comments are closed for this news story. If you have something to share, feel free to get in touch.
Jamu
Yes, I have heard this complaint befroe. And I lived in Toronto for 20 years, too. But I don’t think it’s a Toronto thing, necessarily, I think it’s a Canadian thing. I have heard this same complaint about Canada in general for decades. Although, I believe it’s not just a Canadian phenomenon anymore. New York can be like this too at times. I think it’s a common thing happening in North America anyway, the fact that there is less and less “reciprocity” from the audience more and more. It’s sad that: 1) People can’t simply shut up and listen anymore. The art of listening seems to have vanquished from our skill-set as humans, as a society. 2) Less and less people want to go out; to either visit a bar (which may or may not have music), or to take a chance on seeing something new (other than U2, or Rolling Stones). 3) That clubs don’t pay musicians to play anymore, or if they do, it’s a pittance. 4) Unfortunately, there are simply more to distract people from going out. Netflix, Playstations and the like, the internet, all are leading people to stay in. We all hear reports that people are nesting more and more, going out less. There is less and less people going to see movies even, or even watching TV at home. 5) Part of the reason clubs don’t want to pay, is because over and over again, “other” musicians are willing to play for free, and often free is not so good quality So I ask, why would the average person go to see music when it is, well, average, or mediocre? Now I know there are some great musicians, great bands out there, but a series of bad choices along the way have made it even worse for our pour, average, “deer in the headlights”, more reserved-in-nature, Canadians. I hope that doesn’t sound bitter, it’s just things I see happening how we got to here, kind of thing.
atgfeddrred
OII8o8 popyilzlsgjp
Starleigh
There’s a lot of synthesizer stuff out these days, a lot of atonuuted voices, and it always kind of bugged me. It’s fun to listen to, but I can’t play this stuff on my guitar really! And it would be refreshing to find some more singers with voices they don’t change up. Like, natural talent. Remember why The Beatles were so awesome? Yeah. Anyway, I’m not cutting down today’s music, just, am I the only one who wishes there was some kind of 100% natural music with actual guitars, drums (that aren’t synthesized rock beats), real pianos, good voices that are actually the true voice of the singer? I actually have a theory that one day there will be like like a musical revolution I guess. Because there isn’t really one thing that sticks out and is the thing of 2011 these days. Like, there was the age of Elvis, and I know Nirvana, Black Sabath, The Who all and don’t forget The Beatles were all the standing out stuff at one point or another. There’s not really a top band or singer for this age. I think Pink, Avril Lavigne, Paramore, Bruno Mars all are pretty natural. But I kind of think there’s got to be some musical group coming that will be natural and be the thing of 2011 s musical world’ and set a new trend or something. Sounds stupid, but think about it. Whatdo you think about today’s music? I know my guitar teacher gets really mad about synths!
buy viagra 25mg Viagra
Dmitry
Sheryl-Blessings to you. I’d just like to clarify soenmhitg that I believe you are missing. The distinction that Shane Claiborne is trying to teach, is that witnessing cannot happen until we have developed a relationship to the person. This is soenmhitg basic that any study in communication will also support. For example: if I were to encounter a total stranger on the street, and asked them to talk to me about their family (or any deeply personal issue), i would be met with resistance. If, however, I have shared experiences with this person beforehand, and their opinion of me was positive; I would receive little to absolutely no resistance what-so-ever. Shane is putting a total faith in the idea that by fleshing out the kind of life Jesus and His Disciples lived, people will be DRAWN to us and the message of the Gospel. This is in no way blasphemous, and is irrefutably the way in which the early Christians lived and understood the approach. I do not mean to offend, and if my words have come across as hostile I sincerely apologize.
skagzb
oL4Evq , [url=http://pteaiwsoiqpo.com/]pteaiwsoiqpo[/url], [link=http://nzxwfqdiljum.com/]nzxwfqdiljum[/link], http://jokaiwdyraeg.com/
muawmsma
HCVam3 mnnwfdgnwzlo