Comments on: Terryl Givens: The Scholar as Celebrant

By: Ben H

Ben H — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:54:04 +0000

You put that really powerfully, Nate. Yes, I think that is what is so exciting about this book.

By: Adam Greenwood

Adam Greenwood — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:45:08 +0000

I’m no polymath, but has there really been a lot of scholarship doing what People of Paradox does?

By: BHodges

BHodges — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:33:56 +0000

Great explanation, thanks.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:57:46 +0000

Nate, I think that Givens’s scholarly language and textual formatting is window dressing, but the reason is that he offers little that is new. Consider that his most successful book is a long literature review on the Book of Mormon. Yes, one can be a celebrant or a critic and be a scholar. But one cannot simply rehearse minimal community stories of self-identity without forfeiting the title.

By: Nate Oman

Nate Oman — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:27:50 +0000

Aaron: Is your criticism that being a celebrant disqualifies one from being a scholar? On this view I take that you think that Givens scholarlly aparatus is simply window dressing. Alternatively, is your criticism that while one may be a celebrant Givens’ work is not real scholarship because he offers nothing new?

For the record, I disagree with both claims, but I am trying to figure out which of them you are making.

By: Matt W.

Matt W. — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:07:52 +0000

Aaron, sure, but I love that flowery language. Givens is like Ardis in that way. He could write me the phone book, and I’d read it.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:57:15 +0000

Celebrant, yes; scholarly, maybe. A scholastic celebrant would be the best turn of phrase, since all Givens does is restate received wisdom and well-established ideas in flowery language.

By: Rosalynde Welch

Rosalynde Welch — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:11:41 +0000

Nate, this is a great review. It strikes me as a piece written by someone whose intellectual proclivities run to history and philosophy, and will appeal to philosophers and historians (and us amateur wannabes, too). Your primary referents are Plato, Arrington and McMurrin, rather than someone like Barbara Kiefer Lewalski and other cultural historians. Part of the book’s power is that it can be reviewed with interest by historians and philosophers as well as textual scholars.

By: Jim F.

Jim F. — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 02:58:17 +0000

Nate, I think this is the first review I’ve read that understands what Givens is up to. Thanks. I would like to see a lot more of this kind of work by Saints, work that uses imagination carefully (though, admittedly, sometimes not completely accurately) to think about who we are.

By: Robert C.

Robert C. — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:41:31 +0000

Thanks, Nate, this is probably the first review that actually makes me want to take the time to read the book.