This link, as recently as September 1998, contained a critique written by Najia El-Mouzayen for this web site
concerning an article published by Caravan Magazine. Najia was, for many years, on the writing staff of the Caravan
magazine, and more recently has been an occasional contributor to both the Caravan and this web site. Najia chose
to post her critique here because she felt that her review of the article was too critical, ascerbic, and long
to be submitted to the Caravan Magazine. The original work Najia reviewed was written by Morwenna Assaf. It appeared
in both Caravan and at least one other magazine and was published by both in late 1997. It was titled "What
Really is Ethnic Dance?"
Najia writes about her reason for asking Lynette to remove the
negative critique:
Criticism of any kind is rarely printed in the field of Oriental dance, unlike other forms of dance, music and
graphic arts. Oriental dance publications are generally a hot-bed repository containing glowing accounts of dance
mediocrity in shows, workshops, and festivals. All the superlatives get over-worked and nullified so that when
a great piece of work comes along, it goes unrecognized in print because one cannot distinguish the glowing, fabulous,
extraordinary WHEAT from the glowing, fabulous, extraordinary CHAFF.
Initially, I was amused by Morwenna’s article because I thought it was a satire demonstrating excessive use of
jargon. After a short time though, I realized that it was written and published in earnest. I was appalled. What
happens to these articles over time is that they take on a special life of their own. Freshmen in college write
term papers citing them as authority, and they grow and feed the empty void of any scholarly-looking writing. Others
quote them, giving them credence precisely because they appeared in print. It is my conviction that to let these
writings go on into the future unscathed is careless, if one values the transmission of ideas from dancer to dancer.
My apparent faux pas was to laugh about a languid bit of journalist flotsam that attracted my attention because
it seemed to have a scholarly look. I approached the ideas contained in the writing as a journalist would critique
a bad Broadway show--point by point and with disdain, a course of action which was interpreted by the editors,
who had determined it was fit to publish in Caravan, as sarcasm. I hope so, if anything deserved a bit of sarcasm,
that one-page article was it. It is very difficult to be smarmy about statements such as, "It [ethnic dance]
came into being in the 40’s to differentiate between the accepted classics." At any rate, I publicly scoffed
at that idea and other notions contained in the poorly organized and self-contradictory article--not the author,
whom I do not know. I was informed that by citing the source of the original article as the Caravan Magazine, and
by writing (as they termed it) a "rebuttal"*, I had some-how attacked Caravan Magazine, its staff, and
my dance instructor. If that were true, then all of the people around the world who do research, reviews and other
commentary and who properly cite their sources in foot-notes and bibliographies are as guilty as I am.
Even scathing criticism can be a service to a subject if it is focused on ideas, concepts, and theories rather
than the people who create them. All I know of Morwenna Assaf is this one writing. At least, she cared enough to
try to define ethnic dance. But the fact remains, writers need to correctly document their material, especially
when attempting to be definitive. It is not necessary to express oneself in passe` terms better used in anthropology,
producing incomprehensible, self-contradictory drivel. If those terms were used incorrectly because they were products
of outmoded thought from writers in the past, then maybe it would have become understandable and quaint--provided
standard quotations, footnotes, or bibliography had been listed. You can’t have it both ways; either you take full
credit for your original thoughts and opinions, or you credit the source. There is no such thing as an unbiased
criticism or unbiased rebuttal either. Both are inherently slanted to one side.
Perhaps you have noticed that all publishers print, in each issue, disclaimers because they wish to carry candid
discussion, thoughts, and creations of others to the public while not being held responsible for offending anyone.
Cloying, half disguised depictions of things and events grow tiresome both to write and to decipher in this hyper-sensitive,
feel-good dance form. Publishers of Caravan objected so emotionally to my critique and its existence on the Internet,
that I thought that it was best not to insist on maintaining my rights to free speech in this instance, or for
your opportunity to accept or reject a strongly worded negative criticism of a Caravan article by a "guest
writer". Both the insignificant article and my caustic critique were not worth the aggravation they appeared
to be causing. I have now been told that controversy is not welcomed by everyone, and that a positive attitude
that is helpful to dancers who want to learn is preferable.
This came as quite a revelation to me, since I have been around a the Oriental dance venue for nearly three decades
now and have found that those people who have survived and even flourished are candid, outspoken, and fully willing
to share sources.
I honor and remember the former publishers of Habibi Magazine, Bob and Lynn Zalot, where I was a consistent member
of the writing staff for thirteen years. I respect the fine line they walked in their brave resolve to print pros
and cons of the many subjects about which I and others wrote, while still chronicling a lot of uninteresting dance-events
in so-called "news" features, and for encouraging the responsiveness of their readership. They were innovators
in the field of Oriental Dance, being both pragmatic and altruistic. I have been told that things have changed
in twenty years and that you readers are too busy to respond. I don’t think so--you do not seem too busy to respond
to and by the Internet. Some of you have told me you have been bored with endless puff pieces and repetitively
written "news" about lackluster events.
When Lynn Zalot died, and Bob decided to sell the "Habibi", he had a viable periodical to sell. It is
still in business today, with a new look, under the ownership of Shareen El Safy. Had Yasmine Samra, owner, editor
and publisher of "Belly Dancer Magazine" not been forced by unfortunate personal circumstances to leave
the area suddenly, it is conceivable that her magazine would have survived in business today, since she was a well-educated
and vibrant young woman. She also made sure to include articles that gave two sides to many issues. I was privileged
to write part of a regular feature entitled "Two Sides" for several years. (EXCERPTS of those articles
may be found on this homepage.) Many of us miss the Belly Dancer Magazine which met its demise though no fault
of its own. I hold up defunct "Belly Dancer" and extant "Habibi Magazine" as two examples of
meaty publications with numerous captivating and controversial articles and containing lovely graphics in each
issue. Shareen El Safy has helped the Habibi to grow and improve, although she has had to sacrifice frequency of
issue, apparently by insisting on QUALITY AND QUANTITY of content.
When Oriental dance proponents learn to withstand occasional harsh criticism as other arts must, perhaps "belly
dance" will be treated as a mature and demanding dance form, respected by proponents of other art forms. Until
then... see you on the Web; I welcome your comments.
*footnote:
A rebuttal is a formal argument offering proofs whereas a critique is a critical judgement and comment concerning
a work.
How to reach Lynette or Snake's Kin Studio:
Send E-mail..........lynette@snakeskin.com