Thursday, November 17, 2011

So YOU want to be a 'writer'

One of the most polarizing and crude poets happens to be one of my favorites. Charles Bukowski, generally speaking, writes poems with a unique subversive voice that the reader can't seem to put the book down, no matter how enraged they might become.

His poem 'So You want to be A Writer' is one of my favorite poems. The poem is at the bottom of the post.

I have been thinking for the last couple of weeks about what it means to be a writer. And after one of my plays was chosen to be produced and a friend asking me if I considered myself a writer, I was taken aback. I don't know, am I? I mean, sure. I write stories that are apparently pleasing to people. I mean, no one has booed. Or ripped my book in half. No one has damned my writing or called for it to be burned. But am I a 'writer.'

I will admit to being a bibliophage. Maybe even a bit pretentious. Maybe I'm a burgeoning writer. Someone who will have a meteoric rise. Not now though. Now I'm just hanging out, banging keys on my keyboard.

Since my show The Kids are Pissin' on the Front Lawn was chosen to be produced this December, I have heard plenty of nice things about the script. And me. And me as a writer. I've heard people speak about themes of the show. About the characters and their relationships. I've listened to people discuss the design of the show. I've listened as actors discover their characters. I've enjoyed hearing the director discuss her excitement about the show and its meaning.

Sure I had inspiration for the show. Yet, the unsexy answer is I wanted to write a play. And this is what came out. This often disruptive, clamoring heap of a show. And to be fair, I started with the inspiration, the event that occurred, and then blew that up. I annihilated it. I picked up the pieces and examined each one to create a world that was difficult, comforting and haunting.

I am extraordinarily interested to see how people react to the characters. Will they identify themselves in the characters? If they do, will they admit it? Will it affect them? If it does will it be immediate? Or will they be walking down the street and then all of a sudden they'll think "Crap. That bastard affected me." To that end, was it me? My words?

I started this play because I met David Lindsay-Abaire. He received advice from Marsha Norman while he was at Juilliard. Norman said 'If you want to write a good play, write about what frightens you most.' What frightens me most? That's a good question. And I won't answer this directly except for saying if you come to the show, you'll hear the characters talk about fears quite a bit. And I won't tell you which things are directly attributed to me, but there are a few.

But it is an interesting thought. To write about what is most personally frightening. To become a servant to the audience. To open up the private self and present it in characters. And what if, what if the audience doesn't retain the wall between the author and the characters and projects the characters thoughts directly upon mine. This play asks a fair amount of rude questions and has a fair amount of rude language, what if the audience shuts down and doesn't respond at all? What if people walk out? Or if people are so filled with vitriol they egg my house.

Not to be brilliantly quixotic, but then I guess I succeeded. And this play succeeded. And the cast and crew should be proud. It has been a whirlwind month. I have no idea how I will feel when I walk in and see the set for the first time. And I have no idea how I will feel on December 8 when the lights dim and the show begins. Or on December 9 when a former professor, Dr. Darcie Rives-East, asks me questions about the show and then opens the discussion up to the audience. Or on December 10 when my in-laws and a friend from New Mexico are in the audience. Or for that matter later on December 10 when the lights dim and the set is taken apart and the play returns to the ephemeral state.

So, I guess, what was the point of this post. No idea. Besides the fact that this play came 'roaring out of me'; but I am prepared to wait as well. I'm also struck by a quote by Jonathan Franzen. And that is "I voluntarily inflicted a certain level of insanity on myself.' Boy did I. And perhaps that is what it means to be a writer. The ability to inflict insanity upon yourself, to become a glorified schizophrenic, to hear voices and put them to the page. Ultimately, to annihilate yourself, to blow yourself up, and pick up the pieces.

So, am I a writer?

So You Want to Be a Writer by Charles Bukowski

if it doesn't come bursting out of you
in spite of everything,
don't do it.
unless it comes unasked out of your
heart and your mind and your mouth
and your gut,
don't do it.
if you have to sit for hours
staring at your computer screen
or hunched over your
typewriter
searching for words,
don't do it.
if you're doing it for money or
fame,
don't do it.
if you're doing it because you want
women in your bed,
don't do it.
if you have to sit there and
rewrite it again and again,
don't do it.
if it's hard work just thinking about doing it,
don't do it.
if you're trying to write like somebody
else,
forget about it.
if you have to wait for it to roar out of
you,
then wait patiently.
if it never does roar out of you,
do something else.

if you first have to read it to your wife
or your girlfriend or your boyfriend
or your parents or to anybody at all,
you're not ready.

don't be like so many writers,
don't be like so many thousands of
people who call themselves writers,
don't be dull and boring and
pretentious, don't be consumed with self-
love.
the libraries of the world have
yawned themselves to
sleep
over your kind.
don't add to that.
don't do it.
unless it comes out of
your soul like a rocket,
unless being still would
drive you to madness or
suicide or murder,
don't do it.
unless the sun inside you is
burning your gut,
don't do it.

when it is truly time,
and if you have been chosen,
it will do it by
itself and it will keep on doing it
until you die or it dies in you.

there is no other way.

and there never was.



Monday, August 8, 2011

A Case of the Mondays

So, I've been attempting to think of something to post today. And if I'm being perfectly honest, I'm too lazy to think of something. And so I remembered this video from a HBO special with Lady Gaga. So, here is your post today, a different version of 'Born This Way.' Enjoy. I hope you're swell.




Sunday, August 7, 2011

A Few Thoughts

Strange thing.

Why do we hold on to things? I mean, as I stated before, I'm in the midst of moving, and might I say that I have a lot of crap. And this isn't the oh-man-I-have-a lot-of-stuff 'crap.' It is crap. Stuff I'm not even sure where I got it. But it is a strange thing, no? Holding onto certain objects just because they meant something extraordinarily special at some point. There are certain things I wouldn't give away, no matter what. But there are some things where I am not sure exactly why I have them.

Anyway, I just wanted to write this post because I'm not exactly sure what to make of it. Why I'm so attached to certain things. And why I feel the need to hold onto them.

One thing was from the first college I attended, Holy Cross College. One was the packet given to all freshmen at orientation, another was the disciplinary letter after I was got with alcohol in my room, and another was a card inviting my parents to orientation weekend. Now, I could easily throw all of this away. Easily. Yet, it is still in my pile of stuff to be packed and transported with my other cherished belongings to South Dakota. But, why?

Is it because this was stuff from such a tumultuous time? A time when I made several life altering (And I'm not being dramatic) decisions. And it is a way for me to remember my monolithic journey. Maybe.

Anyway, this also reminds me of the question 'if you had 30 seconds before you had to leave your apartment, what would you grab?' or better yet 'what is your most cherished possession?'

Some food for thought, ya'll. I hope you're swell.

Friday, August 5, 2011

'The Corrections' Corrected





The previous link is a portion of the book I am currently reading, 'The Corrections' by Jonathan Franzen.

Now I do not claim to be a cultural theorist or a person who necessarily is adept at philosophy or anything. However, I opine that a few people in this country feel the same way as the main speaker of this passage. The what-good-is-it-to-attack-everything crowd. And I think that she has a point. Is there a stopping point for 'unpacking' things? Well, yes. And no.

The first day of my undergraduate Engl 380 class we critiqued a song by Hannah Montana. I have included the song lyrics now to aide this discussion:

Don't let no small frustration
Ever bring you down
No, no, no, no
Just take a situation
And turn it all around

With a new attitude everything can change
Make it how you want it to be
Stay mad, why do that? Give yourself a break
Laugh about it and you'll see

Life's what you make it
So let's make it rock
Life's what you make it
So come on, come on, come on, everybody now

Why be sad broken hearted?
There's so much to do
Life is hard or it's a party
The choice is up to you

With a new attitude everything can change
Make it how you want it to be
Stay sad, why do that? Give yourself a break
I know you want to party with me

Life's what you make it
[From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/h/hannah-montana-lyrics/life_s-what-you-make-it-lyrics.html]
So let's make it rock
Life's what you make it
So come on, come on, come on, everybody now

Let's celebrate it, join in everyone
You decide 'cause life's what you make it

Things are looking up anytime you want
All you gotta do is realize that
It's under your control
So let the good times rock and roll!

C'mon everybody
Do it now
All right, let's get the party started
Yeah, yeah, yeah, now that's a party
Yeah, yeah, put your hands together

Life's what you make it
So let's make it rock, let's make it rock
Life's what you make it
So come on, come on, come on, everybody now

Let's celebrate it, join in everyone
You decide 'cause life's what you make it, aww yeah
Life is what you make it


And now that we have the contribution from the Gospel According to Hannah Montana (or Miley Cyrus, I never know which, this is so confusing) let's think about what this song says. I mean to boil it down to the root, I suppose it says 'Why the hell are you so sad? Be happy. Life's not that bad. Stop this messing around. Life is what you make it' Of course, it has been Disney Channel-ified. But here is where I think the character in the book, perhaps as a point. Is Miley Cyrus using this song as call-to-arms against all people with depression, bipolar disorder, or other mental issues? No. Probably not. But is this is a song that could challenge the abstruse idea that you can do anything in the world that you want as long as you work hard enough...maybe. But then, is that bad?

I had the benefit of having a professor who was good about accepting other ideas. And gave us free-reign as far as these frustrating, fascinating topics/theories/etc is concerned. But I am struck with a simple sentence in this passage:

'It is so typical and perfect you hate those ads!'

So I thought then, why do I hate the ads I hate? Sometimes I think it simply because they are 'below' me and I'm feeling esoteric that day. Sometimes I think it is because they are just poorly made. But is it because sometimes that in my heart of hearts I have some unknown creature of white-male-succesful-itis. And I really do dislike people who are different than me. Well, no. I'm pretty open about other places, cultures, etc. But it is interesting to think about. Why do you hate the ads you hate? Again, what do you CHOOSE to pay attention to? And do you CHOOSE it? Our programming is chosen by someone in some office somewhere who bases 'what is on' by statistics of who is watching. So, then, do we choose what we pay attention to? That is to say, if we- the general we- stop watching certain things and stopped consuming certain products (both nutritionally and entertainment) would the cigar-chomping big wigs change their tune?

Now, to connect the book passage to this previous paragraph. The word 'corporate' and what that signifies. The passage says: They all know 'corporate' is a dirty word.

Interesting, yes? Does corporate mean evil and is it a dirty word? No. But there are plenty of words that go along with corporate nowadays: sell-out, big business (that's interesting in and of itself, 'big' business), global economy, CAPITALISM, etc etc etc. I wish I could use this example from a book I have somewhere, but alas, I am in the midst of packing, so I can only speak in generalities. But the book contains a table of what kind of music is used to advertise certain products. Generally speaking, classical music seems to be used for 'elite' products. But why is that? Couldn't Mozart just as easily sell McDonald's Fries as it is paired with Lexus or Mercedes? Again, to the point of the passage about 'stupid, lame problem with signifiers and signifieds.' Apparently classical music is used for elite, whilst cheeky jingles are attributed to fast food.

I feel as though I'm one of those people who are 'wringing their hands' about problems in this culture. Though, I'm not exactly sure what the problems are. OR who causes them. OR better yet, how to solve them.

I think it is important to pay attention to and to critique things. However, I think there must be a stopping point somewhere. Perhaps it is a point just before we all become xenophobic and all build cellars and hide from everything.


I'll think I'll leave it here for now. I hope you're swell.





Thursday, August 4, 2011

A post

Well, I've just about dropped this writing everyday thing, eh? But, life seems to get in the way of things. Or does it? And I suppose that this is the foundation of this blog entry. The catch line: What do you pay attention to?

In a commencement speech that author David Foster Wallace gave to Kenyon University the crux of his message was that you now have the power and ability to choose what to learn, what to pay attention to, etc. That there would be several small little occurrences throughout your day (and life) that will make you just shudder with fear, rage and angst. One of his examples was that you'll be shopping and the check-out lane will be full of agitated people who feel they are equally important if not more important than you. And that perhaps one reason they are agitated is because they've been spending night after night holding the hand of their husband who is dying of bone cancer. And to further articulate this, something that a friend of mine, Julia Bennett, said was to be kinder to people than necessary, you don't know what battles they are facing.


At this point, I'm going to post the link to audio of the DFW commencement speech. Listen now or later. :)

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5THXa_H_N8
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSAzbSQqals&feature=related


I'll post more later.





Wednesday, July 20, 2011

The Deathly Hallows and Other Thoughts about J.K. Rowling

In the wake of the final chapter of the Harry Potter series, I've been wondering where this mammoth series will reside. That is to say, who 'owns' it.

On the red carpet of the London premiere J.K. Rowling said 'Whether through the cinema or the page, Hogwarts will always be there to welcome you home.'

A rather nice sentiment, wouldn't you say? And I suppose that is true. Whether you decide to pick up one of the books or a film, this series isn't 'over.'

My wife and I decided to read all seven books before the release of the final movie. It was my first time reading through the books. And I have to say that the books are far more layered, far more interesting, and for lack of a better word, 'better' than their cinematic counterparts. Here is an interesting point to me. The first book came out in 1997 and the final movie came out in 2011. A fourteen year span. Some of the young kids that I watched the final movie with could have been not born yet when the first book came out.

J.K. Rowling has no doubt reached meteoric fame, fortune and whatever else you want to say in these past fourteen years. However, as nice as money is, what is more impressive to me is that this author finished the work. The complete series. And is still young. The last play of August Wilson's century cycle came very near the end of his life. And the interesting part of this whole story is that there may be more from Rowling. She has already said she has been working on a few things but wanted to wait until Harry Potter concluded.

I intend on writing a review of HP7:2 in the near future. But I wanted to let it fester for a while before I do.

More later. I know, a lame excuse for an entry. But it's nearly dinner time and I've pumped full of coffee. Maybe I should eat something. I hope you're well. And let's chat again soon.

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Round Two

So then.

After urging from a former professor (and friend) Dr. Darcie Rives-East of Augustana College the purpose of this blog entry will be focused on the idea of 'performativity' (from last blog) and discourse (given life by Michael Foucault and others.)

Here is a quick run down of the 'discourse' --as stated by Michael Foucault--that they are 'practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak.' The discourses work in three ways: they constitute, constrain and enable. More often than not language is a good example of what is being said here. Language enables me to speak, constrains what I say, and ultimately defines or constitutes myself as a subject. Generally, people of the same discourse are the ones who use language effectively within that discourse (i.e. I am not in the hunter discourse so I wouldn't be able to effectively articulate within that discourse.)

And to put it in simpler terms, 'discourses' is the multiplicity of life. As in within ourselves multiple discourses are at work. I may be enabling a different style of language while at work then I would at home. And vice versa.

So then, how does this relate back to performativity and the self?

If we say that being Republican is a definitive discourse and we establish a binary between republican and awfully 'republican' things, well what if we deconstructed it? That is to say if a candidate for the Republican party in his private self felt more aligned with more 'centrist' or liberal ideals, could he win that nomination, or in his performative self would he have to subscribe to the Republican discourse.

Fig 1.1

Public Private Performative DISCOURSE

Senator Catholic Republican (Conservative) Low taxes, strong military (etc)

And of course there is a simple way out of this and that is 'well, a REPUBLICAN couldn't hold those ideals and be a REPUBLICAN.' Well, why not? This relates back to the idea of a sign and signifier relationship.

Fig 1.2

Republican (signifier) Low Taxes, Strong Military, etc etc etc (signified)

That is to say that the word itself, doesn't have any 'republican' attributes. It isn't cigar chomping, big business, ballyhoo, those signifiers are placed by some factual events, but mostly by our perceptions. We could have just as easily adopted this party as the Little Owl Party. To further the binary, let's completely switch the qualities of each party.

Fig 1.3

Republican (liberal)
Democrat (conservative)

And I suppose this is where we are given the idea that there are 'conservative Democrats' and 'liberal Republicans.' And the idea that someone who steps outside the discourse of the two distinguished parties is considered to be xenogeneic***.

Now for my next trick is bring all this back together. If we agree that 'republican' is a discourse than the way it enables, constrains and constitutes.

A Republican discourse enables the man or woman to hold power over a certain voting population (positive or negative), constrains them to a prescribed way of speech and ideas, and constitutes them by the 'republican' moniker. (Please note that I only picked 'republican' for this blog because they tend to hold more negative words attached to them as a signifier.)

And here is where I'll attempt to get away from the political slant. And use none other than Lady Gaga.

Fig 1.4

Public Self Private Self Performative Discourse
Performer Stefani Lady Gaga Artist, Catholic, etc.


Lady Gaga in her performative self is the 'freak', 'outcast', etc that has been thrust upon her and she has gladly (more often than not) accepted. Her private self she is Stefani a daughter, a co-worker, a whatever with hopes, dreams, fears and consequences. And of course her public self is as a performer. And the discourse Lady Gaga is a part of as such can be broken into several issues.

Fig 1.5

Economic- How her record sales propel the music industry.
Social- How her 'Born This Way', you're all beautiful, messages affect young people.
Religious- Being a Catholic and being able to procure her artistic identity.
Academic- Study of her music, study of dance, etc.

However, the issue of enable, constitute and constrain the discourse of Lady Gaga remains.


So then, this reverts back to the idea of 'truth' within our society. The zeitgeist of the nation as it were. We hold these truths to be self-evident that binaries are uphold and a Republican is a Republican and a Democrat is a Democrat. But what if they weren't. Ultimately discourse leads to knowledge and as School House Rock said, knowledge is power (some other philosophers said it as well, but for now, we'll study from the SHR Canon.) And perhaps this Three Self model and discourse work something like this:

Public Self

Private Self Performative Self
You.


Discourses

Each of the three and the discourses pull you and you pull on the societal discourse. I suppose of there wasn't a continuum between it all we'd be nearing solipsism. But that's a topic for another day.

More later.

~Jon


***The parents of course being the founding fathers. ***







Monday, June 20, 2011

Public Self/ Private Self

Disclaimer: I am writing this having nevertruly studied the social psychology behind the idea of public self vs private self. And anything written henceforth is more an epistle to figure this all out. If you're interested, read on. Thanks, Management.


After beginning to read David Foster Wallace's book 'The Pale King' I have become interested in the concept of public self vs private self. To provide context of the book, the book is a tornadic introduction to the 'main character' Dave Wallace and his time at the IRS center in Peoria, Ill during the years of 1985-86. During a chapter in which David Foster Wallace breaks the mold of the 'fiction genre' and becomes more of a memoir, he describes the feeling of public self and private self. And he concludes that perhaps it is a 'performative self.'

After thinking about if it was really a private self and a performative self or a public and performative, I opine that perhaps we have all three within us. For example, take a person who is in a very public job, like a congressman or whatever.

Fig 1.1

Public Self Private Self
Senator Husband, Hunter, Catholic, etc.

But then, what is the performative self of this equation? I would suggest then that the performative self would be more the abstruse thought that every politician actually cares deeply about every issue, across the board. So then:

Fig 1.2

Public Self Private Self Performative Self
Job True feelings/Inner thoughts The 'Platform'.

Furthermore, the signification behind 'platform' suggests the basis of which the politician launches their career. Granted, the performative self may infiltrate the private self and vice versa. However, I'd like to make the distinction behind a private thought (i.e. feelings about abortion) and the performative thought (i.e. passing a bill about abortion). And to take a politico like JFK who claimed during the presidential debates that he would leave Catholicism out of the equation whilst he was working in the Oval Office. But then I suppose that this is the crux of the question, then isn't it? Is there a clear meadow between each of the three parts of the self. Or perhaps is it more of a continuum. Something in the same field of vision as Plato's Divided Line.

Fig 1.3


To thrust forcibly my own beliefs into the model set forth by your friend and mine (Plato), I think it would appear something like this:

Fig 1.4

Intelligible World:

Forms (I.e. A Senator is a from, perhaps a title what Barthes and Co. would call a 'sign').

Private/Public Self

World Of Appearance

Forms (I.e. What Barthes and Co. would call a 'signifier'.

Performative (Platform)


So then to make the already murky waters a bit more brackish, could the 'performative self' also have a 3(a) section in the way of a 'perceived performative self.'

I.e. The public (voters) expect the Senator to display the 'good' when deciding public policy, to remain faithful to his country and his obligations, and to uphold the blah blah blah. Isn't that why they take the Oath of Office then and are sworn in.

So then perhaps our diagram would look something like this:

Fig 1.5

Public Private Performative Perceived Performative
Job Beliefs Platform Mores


I think I'll leave it here for now. More later.

~Jon






Thursday, June 16, 2011

A Few Notes from Target

You know, in this world of instant gratification, instant pleasure, and technological muscles that are flexed a bit too often, I had a perfect experience at work today. And it didn't come from my iPhone, or an e-mail, or anything of the sort. It came from good old fashioned one on one human interaction, face to face.

I was on the sales floor pushing product and intent on getting my job done so I could get the hell out of there. (Even though I had a few hours left.) However, as I was traveling down the aisle, I heard a voice behind me. For any of you who have worked retail, you may have felt this feeling before, the I-just-want-to-get-off-the-floor-before-anyone-spots-me game. I was nearly home free when a woman stopped me. I sighed mentally and wheeled around, expecting to find a 'tuned-in', Starbucks wielding, soccer mom intent on asking where she can find the latest doodad or gadget.

Instead, I found an elderly woman. A bit of my agitation melted away. And then, it all disappeared. This woman was in a wheelchair. One of those fancy Target branded scooter-chairs you can get at the front of the store. Her basket full of a few essentials and she was gazing at the '50% off' endcap.

'Could you tell me how much those are?' she said pointing at the package of paper towels. 'I didn't bring my glasses. So I can't read the prices.'

I answer.

'Okay how about those,' she was now pointing at a two-pack of New Zealand Spring Febreze spray 'have you tried it? Is it good?'

I answer.

'Is it a good price? I don't know for sure.'

After we discuss the price and if she wants the smell, I place the two-pack of New Zealand Febreze spray in her cart. Along with a disgustingly pink two pack of something exotic. I think it is called 'Thai Garden' or something.

She points at the top shelf where some tissues and spoons reside. The spoons are on sale for 74 cents, nearly half off. I place a package of spoons in the basket at the front of her scooter.

All in all, I help her put a package of paper towels in her basket (and later out when she decides she doesn't want them), some Febreze, and some spoons. Not exactly acts of kindness worthy of sainthood. But I can't help but think that perhaps this woman, wherever she is, is thinking about the nice young man at Target. Or at least I hope so.

So, I'm not sure why I wanted to share this story with you. Perhaps it is because just when you think that you're taking yourself too seriously or you feel your life is a tad too rotten. Take some time and think about how we're not entirely alone in this world. No matter how often it may feel that way. Because in this tuned in world complete with all the gadgets and whatever to make us feel connected, isn't it the wonder of the world, that when you hang up after talking to a loved one, you feel more lonely than before. Or when that someone doesn't text you back, you wonder about your friendship. Who knows I suppose.

I hope this post finds you well.

cheers,
jon

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

A Picture for your Wednesday Night

Left Feeling Hungover

In the days since I saw 'The Hangover II' I have been wondering why I wasn't feeling like a gospel should be dedicated to this film. Why I wasn't thrilled to the edge of giddiness about the Wolf Pack, and why my abs weren't aching from the belly laughs.

And I think, perhaps, it is because this installment in the franchise was so formulaic it made my heart sink. Maybe it was because throughout the entire film, you had this unsettling feeling that you had seen this movie before. Well, you had.

Step 1: Alan is hastily brought along to the Bachelor Party.

Step 2: The Wolf Pack promises a night no one shall forget (or remember.)

Step 3: A mistake leads to everyone forgetting (Hangover: Drugged by Alan Hangover II: Drugged by Alan via marshmallows)

Step 4: Wake up in a hotel room

Step 5: Haphazard journey around the city. The beginning you show the audience where the missing person is. Hangover: The mattress on the roof. Hangover II: The Elevator is broken.

Step 6: Late arrival at wedding complete with a rant from Stu about how he has learned something.

Step 7: See the pictures from the night before.

It seems that The Hangover II may have been a surprising, uproarious, devil-may-care movie, if we hadn't seen it the year before. I may not have felt cheated if this film lived in a world without the initial film.

But instead, I felt like I watched a lazy, lackluster stroll through former comedy. I felt, that even though the Wolf Pack was reunited, they left their heart in Las Vegas, or perhaps behind like Justin Bartha's character always seems to.

And, above all of this, in an article by The Rolling Stone, Zach Galifianakis talks about the potential The Hangover III.

We shall see, but for now, I feel a bit hungover.