Mass grave

This marker is in the Mt. Feake cemetary in Waltham on the way I always walk into town.

It says "In tribute to the individuals interred here who resided at the Ferdinand Center and Metropolitan State Hospital and those from all other walks of life. May their memory continue to shine and never be forgotten."

With all that open space behind it... is there any chance this is a mass grave for paupers and mental patients from bygones times?

Is there any chance this isn't?

The hidden mysteries in my ethnic background

My grandmother certainly considered herself to be white. Her name was Julia Leone, nee Gush, and though I never had the chance to ask her about it or anything, that was still pretty clear. She had plenty of reason to. She had skin that was within the reason range of shades for a white person and no features that marked her otherwise. Her maiden name had any indication of ethnicity mangled out of it before she was born, while her married name, though Italian, was white enough. Her husband was white; she was even the mother of a pink-skinned, green-eyed, yellow-haired girl-- the proverbial angelic blonde child. The culture she sprang from and identified with is white culture. If you saw a picture of her, chances are you would not think anything different.

But really... my grandmother wasn't all white. Not completely. She was a first-generation Russian-American. Both of her parents emigrated from Russia in the early Twentieth Century. They met, married, and had eleven children in a small town outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, one of whom was my grandmother Julia. They spoke Russian, worshipped at a Russian Orthodox Church, and identified with the associated ethnicity. My great-grandmother Anna Sherba was fair and blonde, the source of Mom's looks, so unlike either of her parents. This is not an usual appearence for an ethnic Russian, but I was very surprised to hear it-- after all, Grandma, the foremost representative of Russian blood in my life, had sharp features and dark coloring. But that's because of my great grandfather, Tymko Gush, known sometimes as James Gush, whose real surname was lost to Americanization a hundred years ago. According to my Mom, he had tan skin, high cheekbones, and almond shaped eyes. To look at him, he was not a white man, he was obviously Asian.

Because of the Mongolian conquest of the area that would become Russia, there are parts of it where the inhabitants have quite a bit of Asian blood. I'm not positive, but my great-grandfather may have even been Siberian, where it is particularly common. Because of this his ethnicity would be hard to qualify, since he was likely the product of generations of mixed people marrying other mixed people, but he was probably some proportion of Asian and white. That combination is likely the reason why my grandmother looked as white as she did. But it makes me wonder-- what did my great-grandfather consider himself? Did he think of the white versus nonwhite issue? Or was he just "a Russian," a more important distinction in a new country where so few share your ways and customs? I have no idea if there's any conflict between Russians of pure Caucasian decent and the Russians who have some Asian in them. In America, I know pretty much every immigrant in my family suffered some poor treatment from someone on account of their ethnic background. Did my great-grandfather ever get treated differently for someone recognizing him to be nonwhite?

I think of my immediate family. Now on the third generation in this country, my family appears very white, and benefits from the associated privilege. In fact, people have assumed that we must have the very highest level of privilege that being white in this country can possibly confer on you because of how well we present-- that we're not descendents of relatively recent immigrants (we are), that we do not have a close working class history (we do), that we come from people who are rich and educated (we don't). My grandparents-- poor, uneducated, and foreign --did not experience that same privilege. Their backgrounds made them targets for all kinds of hate and discrimination; even my mother and father faced some of that growing up. But still, the time and place my grandmother lived, when you're already suffering because you're ethnic, well, at least you're not tormented for being nonwhite. Getting to claim whiteness was some status better than none. So I guess it's not so strange that my grandma would forget or ignore that part of herself. After all, people tend to consider you to be what you look like. When she looked around, in the mirror or at her blonde daughter, it was probably easy to forget.

Tymko Gush, however, is not the only one I wonder about on that side. My great-grandmother Anna makes me wonder as well. She came to this country from Galitzia, a small area that has been owned by several countries but at the time was Russia, at the age of seventeen to escape the Bolsheviks. At the time, many Jewish families were fleeing from the exact same place to America as well. Her first job in the country was working as a maid for a Jewish family. And I realized when I came to Brandeis that many of the weird "family words" we'd been using-- nebbish, noodge, schmatta --were Yiddish, and had come into use because Anna used them. Those are small things, but they made me wonder... could my great-grandmother have actually been born a Jew?

My mother scoffs at the idea. That blonde ethnic Russian? This was the woman who took her to church every Sunday, who was devoutly Russian Orthodox her entire life. She explains the Yiddish with Anna's maid job when she was first learning English, so their words became her words. (Also, it turned out we used them mostly wrong.) Mom's almost certainly right; of course she knew the woman and I never did. But I can't help wondering, if for only one reason-- Anna Sherba was my mother's mother's mother. So if she was Jewish, then under the law, so are we. So am I.

I know myself to be a white Christian. Though I acknowledge my background to be infintessimally nonwhite, I think it would be silly to consider myself as anything else. That part of me is extremely small and extremely distant from me, plus I see a pale face and Caucasian features when I look in the mirror. But it's fascinating to know it's there in my background-- that I'm a little more complex than meets the eye. And I'm a Christian in my bones. I've heard of people discovering their Jewish heritage and deciding to return to it, but I can't imagine why that alone would be enough to draw you. It certainly wouldn't compel me. But how strange to think that a fact in the past could possibly make something true, that, without its acknowledgement, seems like a fanciful impossibility. I could, technically, be a Jew. It doesn't change me... but it changes something.

Funny how these things work.

Early thoughts on Marvel movies to come

They've released the titles for the upcoming Marvel movies. We knew it was going to be Iron Man 3, but the others are Thor: The Dark World and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Lately I have been trying to avoid to much Internet mumbling about new media I want to see, because I was spoiling myself right and left. So I am mostly just going to wait and see how these three films are, but I still like to muse about what's coming even with no information to go on.

I've heard rumblings about finally dealing with Tony's downward spiraling in Iron Man 3. I was a little disappointed with Iron Man 2 in that he acted like such a self-destructive ass and got basically no consequences for it. We even see him and Pepper happy together in The Avengers. What I wanted was for his asinine behavior to destroy his relationships, and while he is able to pull it together to defeat the bad guys and appear to the public as a hero, to feel like he has nothing because in private his personal life has been ruined. Then the challenge for the next film would be to rebuild it. Sad that couldn't happen. But at least they're hinting that they're going to be dealing with those things in the third installment. I love the character of Tony, his asshole tendecies and all, but I would like him to see consequences for all that garbage.

Basically I have no idea what The Dark World is going to be about. (Chris Hemsworth's bare chest is my personal hope.) All I can say is I've got my fingers crossed that it has Loki in it. He's been roundly defeated in the last two films he was present in, so they may be done with him as a villain, but still, he's such a fabulous character and Tom Hiddleston's performance is so good that I hope he's present in some capacity. It actually might be interesting if he's NOT the villain, but a side character of some sort that has vaguely antagonistic but complicated interactions with Thor. I find the brothers' relationship very interesting, given the whole love/hate thing, and that could add interesting growth and dimension.

As for Captain America, I am SO HAPPY that the next plot will involve the Winter Soldier. So much opportunity for emotional conflict when Cap realizes that his dear friend, whose death he thought was his fault, is not only alive, but now is his enemy. With this vulnerable portrayal of Cap, that will be so awesome. I hope they bring back pretty, pretty Sebastian Stan back to play him. Even if they have to grow his hair our and fuck up that gorgeous face a little. I must confess at first glance, seeing that dark-haired fox in that WWII-era military uniform, I thought he might have actually been hotter than Cap. Given that we first encounter him beside Scrawny Steve (TM) probably didn't hurt. But you know how it goes-- girl meets boys, girl first goes after the hot friend, girl ends up falling in real love with boy standing beside him. A love story with a classic twist. ;-)

You know what I don't want? I don't want Sharon Carter. I don't want Sharon Carter. Have I mentioned that I really really don't want Sharon Carter? It is completely creepy to date somebody because they remind you of a younger version of a relative of theirs. Do not make Cap creepy. I have been creeped on by people with, "My God, you look just like your mother." It is not a socially acceptable thing to do. Do not make Cap do that. Please, please, please.

I get that he and Peggy missed their chance and now he has to deal with that. I find that gorgeously tragic. But a huge part of this character, that his first movie went out of its way to established, is that he was waiting for the One. Lots of people are capable of loving many people, but Steve isn't like that. That's not his character, he doesn't fall lightly. To him Peggy was special enough in a way that is not easily replicated. Now that he can't be with her, that's going to rip him up because of how singular their connection was to him. It's going to take him time to DEAL with that, a LOT of time before he could realistically get over that-- I want to see at least one more movie of him going through that grieving process, as there was pretty much nothing about it in Avengers. I heard that for time issues they had to cut a scene of him visiting a ninety-year-old Peggy, but that's going to DRIVE HOME the tragedy in a tangible way, not get him passed it. We need at least one film where we get to watch him grieve.

Frankly, I would find it so much more moving if they left him single and never had to hook him up with anybody else. I like the idea that his value system makes him act in a way that's markedly different from most others. So, for contrast, let's watch Tony schtupp Pepper, Clint and Natasha hook up, Bruce bang Betty, and Jane Foster ride the lightning with Thor... and then have Steve quietly love Peggy and miss what they might have had. I know that "moving on" is usually considered to be the universal healing act for all romantic loss, but I think it would suit Steve's singular character and make for a beautiful tragedy if there could never be anyone else. I am admittedly a sucker for lovers who find the One, and there can never be anyone else. I know that's not for everyone, I'm not saying it should be, but I think it's beautiful when that's how a soul works out. But if they absolutely HAVE to make him "move on" to someone else-- which I'm sure they will, because God forbid there be no romance for the hero, despite the already nonstandard way they've portrayed Steve's sexuality so far --I just want one fucking movie where he takes the time to grieve, and after that the new woman is anyone but Sharon fucking Carter.

It's going to be Sharon Carter, isn't it? Gross.

Some reasons why I love Movie-Cap

As I’ve mentioned, I always found the comic book Steve Rogers to be completely boring. I understand that they wanted his true power to be his unerring moral compass, but he’s perfect in every other way too—he is always sure of himself, he has no fears, no psychological damage… no personality, really. Some like Bernie will debate this to the death with me, but that’s how I see it. But now that he's been depicted on the big screen... I am in love. I find the move version of the character fascinating, and I wanted to ramble a little bit about why. And I swear, it's not just because I want to jump his perfectly formed bones.

Traditionally in comic books, male characters are depicted as masculine self-insertion fantasies. They are extremely strong, emotionally invulnerable, and of course they are very attractive to the women in the universe. This is not because they are depicted as what women actually find attractive, but because the female characters are acting in the service of the masculine fantasy. They look like what male readers supposedly want to look like, and the women are attracted in the way the readers would like them to be.

But this tendency is what contributes to that huge big problem that comics book have in how often they give off a powerful vibe to women of “THIS IS NOT FOR YOU.” Superhero comic books often indulge hypermasculine fantasy concepts— such as high violence, low emotion, powerful men and sexualized women —and most of the people who are conditioned to find those fantasies appealing are men. And if you don’t have that conditioning, you don’t often find shaved bear men built like refrigerators to be all that relatable. I mean, in one particularly egregrious example, take a look at how notoriously terrible artist Rob Leifeld depicts Cap:

Um... yuck? This is exaggeration, not idealization. And yeah, this is worse even than usual, but it's the extreme of a ubiquitous problem. And I find it stomach-turningly offputting.

Given this theory of what masculinity "should be," there is a long history of when a lot of women find a certain man particularly alluring, other men start deriding that man on the grounds that said alluring qualities make him unmanly or even gay. Often it's for excessive prettiness, or just for not being as traditionally masculine as a desirable man should be under their schema. I read that Rudolph Valentino got a lot of that back in the day, and modern day examples include Orlando Bloom and even Justin Bieber. It stems from a combination of envy for their desirability with ideas about how caring about one's looks is supposed to be a feminine responsibility, how men can't be hot because only men care about hotness, so if a man is hot it's gay.

But to play Captain America in the film, they didn’t find a shaved bear of a man with a shape like a refrigerator. Quite the contrary, they found an exceptionally beautiful man. And the difference that makes is unbelievable. It’s not just the fact that I’m a shallow person who really enjoys looking at beautiful men. (Though I am.) It's that in presenting me with a person who is pleasing to my eye, as opposed to an earlier conception of the same person who is less so, they are acknowledging that my eye and others like mine are in the audience. And more than just acknowledging me, they are are courting my viewership. This beautiful man makes me want to come look, to join that audience. For rising out of a medium that has so much history of scaring the female audience off, that is a remarkable turnabout.

But that's not the only subversive, even progressive aspect of how the film portrayed Steve. For how sexy and gorgeous he is, and how we are allowed to regard him in that capacity, he is not excessively or inappropriately sexualized. He's actually a virgin, pretty explicitly so. This is in the face of the enormous cultural stigma against men with no sexual experience. But the film does not portray this as a negative, unmanly thing; far from it, it is one more thing that shapes the admirable man Steve is. Yeah, he was the kind of dork that some associate with being a virgin, but more than that, it's about his personal value system. He has his own strict code of conduct, something that's very important to him. He's the sort of person who wants to wait for the one, for real love, and anything less isn't enough for him. It's so earnest and decent that we respect him for sticking to this belief system even though it doesn't conform to our own. I find that massively progressive. I mentioned this in my initial review of the film, but it bears repeating: how cool is it that they made a tough, masculine action hero that dudes want to be like with VIRGIN stamped on his forehead? And frankly, I find incredibly attractive.

And you know what, I just plain like beautiful men. Not even necessarily in a stroke material sort of way. I DESPISE how often it is a asserted that by "objective aesthetic sensibilities" the female form is inherently more beautiful than the male one. That's such male-gaze-influenced garbage. I love the masculine figure, and even beyond sexual attraction, I just enjoy basking in the beauty of it. Especially a man like Chris Evans. Dreamy blue eyes, perfectly styled good boy hair, full lips, lovely cheekbones, strong jaw. And that body-- well, suffice it to say, like a work of art, I could just look at him all day.

There are other small adjustments that make the character more human and appealing. This Steve Rogers is young. In the comics he’s a more mature presence, but in the movie they made him more of a boy. This I think was an excellent decision. (Especially in contrast with Tony, who is more of a man, but that's another discussion entirely.) Young people are less formed, have had less time to grow past their issues and figure themselves out. This allows for Steve to not be totally sure of himself, to not have a complete handle on the things that he's insecure about. And he's insecure here, in a beautiful, human, sympathetic way. Leading up to the procedure, he was a complete dork. Even when people are no longer the person that they used to be, the self-image created by their previous state doesn’t just disappear. Having spent more than twenty years as a skinny, awkward nerd that got picked on and ignored, a modest guy like him is not going to shake feeling like that nerd right away. Even after a magical transformation into his current Adonis-like state. That insecurity adds a dimension of humanity, that he may look perfect on the outside, but on the inside, he sometimes feels awkward, unsure, and not very special, just like real people do. And you know what else? Sometimes even perfect Captain America is awkward! Steve Rogers is not a smooth operator. I find it unbelievably cute that he's not worldly, doesn't know how to talk to girls, and sometimes trips over the right thing to do or say. I get the feeling that we sometimes think really desirable guys often have a really arrogant attitude in regards to other people, like "I can have any woman I want, what makes you good enough for me?" But there's no superior attitude there at all-- in fact, he sometimes isn't comfortable with himself. So he would never make anyone feel like they're not good enough.

Finally, I was reading a well-written article on The Good Men Project that was about how female dominants more often exist in the form of desiring the position of control and comparative emotional strength, rather than the classic image of the smacky woman in black leather. I was not so interested in the BDSM aspect of it, but I did connect with how it posits, quote, that “The key component of the female gaze… is vulnerability.” Emotional nakedness rather than emotional armor. I had never thought about it that way, but upon reflection it feels true to me. The fact that they included that youth and insecurity in this conception of the character confers a real vulnerability on him. I love that he's such a good man, the fact that that goodness is his real power. He's endlessly courageous, self-sacrificing, and decent. But he's not always sure of himself, not full of himself despite his own goodness. And yes, yes, that vulnerability is SEXY.

This has gone on way too long, so best to stop there. But those are some of the reasons I can't stop thinking about Movie-Cap. <3

Beginning work on my graphic novel project

Right now I'm doing my first bit of actually productive work on figuring out the plot for my graphic novel assignment. I always have trouble when I try to start a project without already have an idea for it, as opposed to starting the project because I was struck by an idea. But I think I've got at least the seedling of a plotline. Ages ago, I wrote a ten minute play set in the same universe as To Think of Nothing, about the first actress to play the role of Selene in Cassander's play being afraid that she's not good enough for the role, and not good enough for her acclaimed director, who she regards with a kind of reverence that might hint at something more. I like the bones of that play, but it should really be rewritten now that I've grown as a writer. I want to adapt the idea of this piece for the comic, because I click with the concept at least enough to begin, though I am still deciding how much I want to stick to it or deviate from it.

I go often to using theater as my subject matter, because I know and love it well. I can get engaged and write intelligently about the process of making theater. As of this writing, my two one acts that have been performed use theater as subject matter, To Think of Nothing and Merely Players. From there, To Think of Nothing spawned Fountain Thoughts, and that little piece I wrote to practice iambic pentameter. Eventually I'd like to write other things in that universe. Then there's Merely Players, from which I am in the practice of adapting the larp Break a Leg. There's also Just So, which lovingly mocks the kind of people that are sometimes drawn to theater. I hope to not overuse it, but when I'm having trouble figuring out what to work on it's a good shortcut to getting myself invested in the material.

The question now is whether to follow the thread as it appears in Fountain Thoughts or to just use it as a jumping-off point. I know I want a major concept in the piece to be a rivalry between two female artists, played by niobien* and blendedchaitea*. But a scene I worked on today that I am really feeling makes the most sense if Rachel's character, at least, is a dancer. Now, I could make it so they are both dancers and actresses-- certainly a thing that happens --but perhaps just to move myself away from my typical milieu I should make this a story about dance rather than theater. I'm even lucky in that my two first choice models are talented dancers. But if I did that, I'd be concerned that my lesser familiarity and understanding of that process would make me less able to depict an interested story within it. I guess I'll have to work on the plot a little more to figure out which setting would support it better. I just know I really like the one scene I did today, and that at least requires dance.



Put it out of your head

Bah. Brooding today over some things. Things I think I get, but wish I were sure I had a handle on. Trouble is, it's the sort of thing I can't really get an answer about. There's no end to it besides the satisfaction of my own curiosity; the answer would serve no one, perhaps even cause trouble. But I hate not being sure of what I perceive, of what I think the deal is. Operating off one's head canon can be fun when writing terrible fan fic, but we all know what happens when we make such assumptions in real life.

Again, it doesn't really matter one way or the other. I should just quit worrying about it, but I am not good at putting things out of my head. I am obsessive by nature, it's a huge part of what makes me a geek, so just quitting thinking about something is very tough for me. I dislike being uncertain. Especially on the off-chance that it helps me determine how to proceed.

Rewriting Sherlock Holmes: The Final Adventure

As much as I've enjoyed being in Sherlock Holmes: The Final Adventure, I think I mentioned that I had problems with the structure of the script. Even ignoring how I honestly don't believe Holmes as Doyle wrote him is capable of falling in love with anyone, and therefore would never cast his admiration for Irene Adler as romantic in any way, I think that even taking that for granted as the play does have a number of inconsistencies that irk me from a writer's standpoint. As I read it I couldn't help but think if I tried to hand in this piece for schoolwork, my teacher would get on my case for every single one of them.

The biggest issue I take is the idea that Irene Adler is set up as this powerful intellect and a remarkable, mold-breaking woman of considerable personal independence... and yet she bounces from man to man within a very short span of time. I guess you could say that allowing herself romantic freedom is a sign of that independence-- which is how I chose to interpret it in my performance --but it all happens so quickly that it reduces the value of her affection, I think, for it to change and move so quickly. Also it reduces her personal value to that of a romantic conquest for the male characters around her. It's not the most feminist portrayal of a character who is supposed to represent the true value women can have.

But okay, I do get that the way the author Stephen Dietz mashed the stories together, it's kind of necessary for the three romantic connections to exist in order for that story to happen. Two are actually from A Scandal in Bohemia, and then he wanted to connect her with Sherlock Holmes. Fair enough, if that's the direction he has to go in. But there's a big problem even in that. Irene is presented as almost as smart as Holmes-- she's able to see through his disguise and thwart his scheme. But then this small-time con man James Larabee is able to so completely pull the wool over his eyes as to convince her he's a gentleman, and make her fall in love with him? I don't buy it. I don't buy that he could trick her when a much more formidable man could not, and I also don't buy that she would go for him. I mean, I know that contrary to popular literary portrayal, love is not logical, you do not get Love to be vended in exchange for ten tokens of Worthiness, but I still don't think Larabee-- who is portrayed later in the play as something of a chump --could sufficiently appeal to her to make her want to spend her life with him.

So how to fix that? How to keep that structure while making it more believable that it could happen that way at all? I pondered this when I couldn't sleep last Wednesday night after a conversation with Chris, our gallant Sherlock Holmes, and I think I know what I would do. I would move the Larabee character out of the position of conning Irene and put Moriarty in his place. I would make Moriarty the one who took on the persona of Godfrey Norton in order to charm Irene and get the photograph from her.

I bet that idea surprises some of you. But hear me out. I swear it's not because of my slight crush on the actor playing him. ;-) Despite the fact that Moriarty appears (barely) in like two stories, he is at least stated to be Holmes' arch nemesis, as formidable a criminal as Holmes is a detective. In this play in particular, Holmes and Moriarty are very much set up as two sides of the same coin. I would believe that, if a man like Sherlock Holmes would attract Irene, a man as similar to him as James Moriarty is would make sense to also win her heart. That consistency in there makes Irene's string of romantic entanglements a little less unbelievable to me. Also, by making the two of them literally romantic rivals in that they are both serious contenders for the same remarkable woman's affection, the dichotomy between them is strongly underscored.

Also, I like the idea that you could have Holmes trying to figure out where Moriarty is in all this, how he has the intelligence he has and how he has managed to gather data on Holmes's own involvement. It would make for a pretty cool reveal when he learns that it's all because Moriarty is right there in the thick of it the whole time, aware of Irene's activity because he is seeing it with his own eyes, even influencing it because of the hold he's gotten over her. Keep in mind, Holmes and Moriarty have never actually met, so they wouldn't know each other by sight, so the audience could even see Moriarty posing as Norton and never realize who he is until he dramatically reveals it.

The one thing you would lose in this schema is the admittedly pretty cool idea that Moriarty never directly involves himself in his criminal activities, which is what makes him so difficult to catch and convict. That is a one of the few things you can genuinely point to in what little literature exists on him that is an intrinsic part of his character. But I would sacrifice that just this one time in trade for all the other cool things that arise from placing Moriarty in that role.

It would change a lot about the rest of the show, for certain. I would probably cut the character of Madge the maid and just have Larabee and Prince as Moriarty's henchmen. Making the overall scheme work again would necessitate some rewriting. But I like the idea that once his identity is revealed, Moriarty can mock Holmes for having won the woman that Holmes has come to love, and taunt Irene for her womanish weakness at being so easily taken in. It makes things more personal, and more believable given the nature of the characters.

Ah, well. It's kind of a pointless exercise. But it has certainly preoccupied me. And given the fact that I'm trying to write a reasonable Holmesian mystery adventure in Mrs. Hawking, this could be useful for me. I still need to work out exactly what's going on in that show. I just need to not turn Mrs. Hawking into a rewrite of Sherlock Holmes: The Final Adventure.

The scandal in Bohemia

If you are familiar with the fabulous Sherlock Holmes story A Scandal in Bohemia, the only one to feature Irene Adler and one of the stories to inspire the show I am in, you know that Irene Adler was in possession of a photograph of herself with the King of Bohemia. The two of them carried on a whirlwind affair, and when he broke it off so that he could marry some Scandinavian princess, she threatened to ruin that marriage by sending the photograph to his bride's father on the day of the wedding. This image above is what we're using for that photograph in the show, and I must say that the two of us do making a charming couple, as they say in the show, "the very picture of love."

With my modern sensibilities, I find it absolutely hilarious that such a tame picture of a man with his ex-girlfriend could be the cause of so much shame and distress. Our director Matt, who took the picture, joked that he should be doing a line of coke or something off my stomach, except that in Victorian times cocaine was a lot more acceptable than dating an opera singer, apparently. I am curious exactly what the nature of the issue is supposed to be. Is it that the highborn king of Bohemia would be degraded to be known to have carried on an affair with a lowborn adventuress from New Jersey? Is it that it is evidence that Wilhelm is going to his marriage less pure and virginal than the driven snow? If that's it, well, at least I am pleased at the lack of a double standard, as I'm sure dear Princess Clothilde is expected to be.

As I mentioned, when we realized the audience is not going to be seeing this picture given how small the prop is, we took silly ones after.

These are my favorites.

Nearing tech week for Sherlock Holmes!

I turned down a part I got in a show today. That's the first time I've done that except in undergrad when I was choosing one show over another, back in the day when it was the etiquette to do so. The role was Dolabella in the Gazebo Players summer production of Antony and Cleopatra, directed by the awesome Debbi Finkelstein. I've always wanted to work with her, but the role is small and I am called for an awful lot of rehearsal given that, which when it requires an hour round-trip of driving just seems like too large a commitment of time. It would have been fun, but I will have just too much grad school work by then to take away time from working on it for a part I don't feel passionate about. I just hope I sounded polite and gracious when I declined. I still would really like to work with Debbi as a director someday, as I've heard she does good work.

This is a picture of me with our Sherlock Holmes. Tonight is the last Holmes rehearsal before tech week begins. I have enjoyed this process immensely, and I feel really good about the show. Having this role has been great for me. I got it strictly by giving a good audition, rather than people knowing me already, which made me proud of myself. And getting the chance to dig into an interesting character and develop a complete performance To be honest I find this conception of Irene in the script to be a little nonsensical if you scrutinize her too much, but I've reconciled and made her my own.

Lenny said to me a little while ago that she thought my best performances were the ones where I didn't need to worry about projecting the opposite gender-- specifically, Cordelia, the Fool, and Puck. Something I've always wondered was if my acting was hobbled a little by having to distract myself with projecting a masculine carriage. Also, because I am so willing to cross cast, I think I get automatically discounted for female roles sometimes because there's always girls who insist that they absolutely can't play a guy. :-P And then most people tend to not want to cross cast important male roles, which means I don't get considered for those either, which limits me further. I should probably just quit saying I'm willing, though I hate the idea of making myself sound so delicate. But it's been nice to get a real role who's a woman for once and be able to concentrate all my energy into acting the character. Also, it's kind of flattering to have gotten it. It's fun getting to be the Pretty Girl. Don't get me wrong, I've loved me my dude roles, but especially given how down I'm been feeling about myself, it's made me feel good to know that people think I make a believable embodiment of a brilliant, singular woman with "a face a man might die for." ;-)

The cast and crew have been great too. They're all really nice and extremely talented, pushing me to try and do better so I measure up to them. I would be happy to work with them again anytime. Even if you're coming to see me, it would be worth it to come to see them.

Fighting the Italian way

Whenever I see a family, or a depiction of a family, that has extended, ongoing arguments, I'm always vaguely amazed. I'm much more used to GINORMOUS ANGRY EXPLOSIONS that are forgotten about the next morning. My family is loving, close, and affectionate, but of course nobody can get to your sore spots like the people you're closest to. My dad calls the way we fight "the Italian way." We YELL, we SCREAM, sometimes we say TERRIBLE THINGS WE DON'T REALLY MEAN, then we stomp off to our separate corners to cool down. And after the cool down, the next time we see each other... everything's okay. The argument's pretty much forgotten, and we get along better again. It is predicated on the assumption that nothing can ever break the bonds of our love for each other, and that the right thing to do is always forgive. I am grateful to have that; it's taught me trust my loved ones, and of course, to be forgiving as an act of love.

The downside, however, is that it's also based on the assumption that people don't really change. They act the way they way they're going to act because that's just part of who they are. To a certain extent I do believe it. Change comes slowly and only with a lot of work and focus. Sometimes when you love somebody you just have to accept that there's always going to be things about them that you don't like or find frustrating.

But often that means that nothing gets resolved. I mean, yeah, I do think that sometimes you can't work through differences and you just have to agree to disagree. But if there is a chance that they can, you never find out, because nobody tries. There's just an explosion that you have to get over immediately. It's nice to have people who always love you and forgive you NO MATTER WHAT, but sometimes it might be nice to see something change for the better next time. Or hell, even hear somebody say "I'm sorry."

Plie in heels

Ever heard of a "click moment"? An instance where due to looking at something in a particular way makes something suddenly make more sense to you than it ever had before?

I had a small once last night when I discovered something interesting. I was at rehearsal, waiting off to the side for my cue to enter. I started idly practicing some ballet steps, holding on to a study carrel like a bar in the high school library where we rehearse. I especially like to practice developpes, because they're so difficult for me, incorporated into some basic routines we use in class.

I've never had a very deep demi-plie in fifth. I can go reasonably low in first and extremely low in second, but not at all in fifth. But last night it seemed remarkable, without even stretching or warming up, I was getting much, much deeper than I ever did in class. I wracked my brain trying to figure out what was different until I realized. I was wearing character shoes, bought specifically for this role as Irene Adler. Very low ones, only an inch high, unfortunately; I was in a rush when I got them, but if I'd had more time I would have sought out slightly higher heels. But when you do a demi-plie in fifth you're supposed to keep your heels flat on the ground, limiting your bend to how long your Achilles tendons can stretch from that position. In my case I guess that's not much. But with my heels even one inch higher off the ground than usual, I could bend many inches deeper than otherwise. It was strange what a huge difference just one inch off the ground made. And it highlighted how important it is for me to keep my body position in mind when I dance.

Not a big deal, I guess. But it kind of blew my mind.

Interview for theater company professional apprenticeship program

Today I have an interview for something called a Professional Apprenticeship Program at a Boston theater group called Company One. It's a supposed to be for learning about the workings of and gaining contacts in the professional theater world, and I applied in playwrighting and directing. I sent them a sample of my work and today they want to talk to me.

I'm not sure it's going to work out even if I do get picked. It says in the information that it's nine weeks long and entails about twenty-five hours of work a week. That is... daunting, to say the least, with the schedule I currently have. Right now my job is already twenty-five hours a week, set up that way so I have enough time to do my schoolwork. Sometimes as it is I have a hard time getting everything done. And even if I could manage that much extra work on top of everything else, I'd be afraid the stress would kill me. I have no idea how heavy the workload for this program would really be, or where I'd have to be in order to do it, so maybe it wouldn't be as intense as I imagine. But there would certainly be a chance that I wouldn't have time for anything else, including seeing loved ones. Nine weeks of that might be unbearable. Especially since I have no clue how helpful it might actually be to my progress towards getting to put on plays.

So I'm pretty pessimistic about the thought of this working out. I need to do something to move my career forward, but I'm not sure this is going work. Still, I'll go and see what's what. Got to at least try things, because you never know.

A cavalcade of dresses

So I have learned that this Festival my costuming will consist entirely of eveningwear! I am super-pleased about this, finally, finally some of my secondhand gowns will see the light of day. But I might decide which among them will get to take advantage of this rare opportunity. For Jesriah, I'm currently looking at these three options:

 

This is the first-ever thrift store gown I ever bought, encouraged by nennivian* and katiescarlett29* in a move that inspired an addiction that continues to this day. I love this gown; the shape is flattering and deep blue is one of my best colors. I'm also fond of the ripply, asymmetrical hem and the wrap bustline. The glitziness of it would work well for a retro diva look, though I'm not sure the color suggests the '30s era all that well.

Another option is this glitzy black dress. It has a similar silhouette and hem to the blue one above, but this has a halter back and a rouched bodice. The shape is not quite as flattering, however; it's slightly stretched out, and there isn't any support in the bust. Because the fit isn't as good, it makes me look a little blockier. Maybe I should sew some bra cups in it sometime to make it fit a little better.

 

 

This dress actually was not rescued from a thrift store. It is new, but I didn't buy it. This one I found when I was cleaning out the green room after Titus wrapped. It was in a shopping bag that still had the receipt in it, shoved between the sewing table and that ugly yellow couch. I checked with everyone around and nobody recognized it, so I decided to take it home. I feel bad for the person who lost it, but the date on the receipt was from over a month before, so whoever it was, they must have thought it was long gone. Plus there was a red bra in the bag with it. They clearly intended to wear with them together because it was exactly the same color, but with the dress's racer back the bra's straps would have been exposed, so obviously the original owner had no taste. ;-) It's from Kim Kardashian's line and the material is extremely cheap, but the color's nice and it fits me like a glove with cool retro shaping. The only real problem is that the hem is so narrow that you have to take mincing little steps while wearing it. I have long strides for as short as I am, so that takes some getting used to.

And of course there's a chance the green Atonement dress might come in before this Friday, which makes it a viable option as well. Though it's a little more society lady than diva. Does anyone have an opinions or preferences?

Performance opportunity

Tossing around an idea in my head. I discovered recently there's a theater around that will rent out a small performance space for private people to put on one-night engagements. I could get a thirty-seat theater with basic tech for an evening for the cost of fifty dollars. It's a small thing, but I am thinking of going for it and putting on some little production just to get something put on. I put in an inquiry about a weekend date sometime in late August or so, to see if it's possible, and maybe get myself on the calendar.

The question would be what to put on. I have been looking at Aria da Capo, a strange and beautiful little one act play by Edna St. Vincent-Millay that I've wanted to direct for a while, but I think it might be a better use of the opportunity to get a piece of my own work out there. Still, what would that be? I only have one one-act that I think is worth putting on and that's To Think of Nothing. Since it's going to be such a small event, I will likely only get people I know coming, and most of the people who would come have already seen that. It'd be another thing if I thought I could get more of the public to come, get more exposure for the piece I'm most proud of, but again, it's only a thirty-seat theater for one night. Probably not going to happen that way.

I have a couple of ten-minute plays, and people do present collections of them as evenings of theater, but I'm not sure I like putting them all together given how little relation they have to one another. But one idea I did have-- so remember how I was musing about how neat it was my humorous ten-minute piece Just So could be cast as men, as women, as men in drag, or women in drag? I thought that maybe it could be played four times in a row, each time with a differently gendered cast, and blocked differently each time to emphasize what was funny about that particular gendering. I would be concerned that it might get boring seeing the same sketch four times, though the piece is short enough (I think it actually runs only about eight minutes) that might not be too big a problem. I would also have to be sure I could come up with blocking that was different enough for each piece to make the point and keep the audience entertained.

Or, if I'm not sure I could do that, I could write something new. Maybe something that even better facilitated being run four times with differently gendered casting. Or just something else entirely. Have to think about that.

Any ideas?

Meh, slash fic

As I’ve mentioned, I’m not a slash fan. I tend to prefer when fan work sticks to canon, so I don’t really enjoy when the characters’ relationships are disrupted to suit an author’s personal preferences. But another thing that bothers me is how it encourages fans to interpret everything characters who are close to each other do through a lens searching for romantic possibility. This propensity in slash often leads to the invalidating of the notion that FRIENDSHIP CAN BE A POWERFUL AND MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP IN AND OF ITSELF. Of course, my making this argument at all is kind of missing the fact that slash is mostly porn. The assumption is made all the time that women don’t like or don’t use porn, which irks me for a lot of feminist reasons, and is obviously refuted by the existence of slash. So I don’t like to gloss over it, and that makes it a little less silly to bitch about. But still, there’s a big cultural concept going on that suggests that friendship is inferior to romantic connection. A girl who doesn’t want to date a guy is “demoting” him to friend status, for example. This is what pushes people away from making real connections with each other non-sexually or non-romantically, either because they think those relationships aren’t as valuable, or that they’re afraid that, since people assume romantic relationships are the only ones worth seriously pursuing, their attempts at closeness will be perceived as romantic interest. This is especially off-putting if there is a concern of making other think the person is gay. So we don’t get a lot of strong portrayals of friendship, or when we do, people wonder at the supposedly “romantic” undertones. :-P And in real life, we get lots of people who don't have any strong connections outside of their significant others, which leads to less emotional support in their lives.

Gwyneth Paltrow's Oscar dress

While I didn't watch the Oscars this year, a lot of the sewing and style blogs I read include pictures of the outfits worn by the celebrity attendees. Apparently dresses with peplums were big-- whatever. :-P My favorite gown, however, surprised me. It was worn by Gwyneth Paltrow and not something I would have expected to like, but I found it elegant in the extreme and absolutely perfect on her.

It's a white Tom Ford column dress inspired by Jackie O's famous 1961 white inaugural ball gown, made by Bergdorf Goodman's Ethel Frankau but designed by the first lady herself.

Frankly I hate Jackie's outfit, I think it's prissy and frumpy and hasn't aged well-- honestly my irritation at the way we've canonized Jackie's style, and in fact her and her whole family, is a subject for a whole other post --but weirdly I love Gwyneth's. The dress itself is simple, fits her well, has an interesting neckline shape, and while normally I would find a cape to be an awkward additional to modern formal wear, this one complements her look perfectly. It has a sleek shape, not to much weight or volume, and I love the way it cuts diagonally over her shoulders but then opens just a little to lay away from the rest of her.

Milanoo.com, a website that sells various sorts of interesting dresses at prices low enough to make me suspect the quality, is offering a replica of this dress at discount, around $127. I confess this tempts me; I like this dress a lot and think it would look good on my body type. I'm not as tall as Gwyneth, which I think helps her pull it off, but I still think it would look nice. But it's not like I need any more dresses, especially formal ones; my thrifting expeditions have yielded more than I have occasion to wear. I definitely should not be spending the money. Also, I am wary of knockoff even in the best of cases. I notice the Milanoo website describes this dress as "one shoulder," but when you see pictures of Gwyneth with the cape off, as it is apparently removable, you can see that it clearly has both sleeves, just an asymmetrical neckline that creates the illusion otherwise when the cape is on. So chances are they screwed up the design.

Hi, Pepper and Tony. Wow, I never noticed how much taller she is than him.

Anyway, so it seems likely that buying this dress from Milanoo would be a waste. Now I'm wondering if I could sew such a thing. It wouldn't have to be an exact replica, I'd just need to make a column dress, maybe emulating the asymmetrical necklace, and figure our how to make a cape that would drape in exactly the same way that this one does. I'm not sure what the fabric should be, probably something smooth but with stretch, given the way it fits. Likely something with crispness to it too, given the folds in the bodice. Not sure I'd need to both copying those, but I do think they're nice. It may yet be beyond my skill, but I'll definitely be adding to it my List of Dresses I Want to Copy Someday, along with the Margaret dress and the Cordelia dress.

The collapse of the Sugar Plum Fairy

This week, both my ballet teachers said I was improving; in fact, on Tuesday Helena said in so many words that she was starting to go harder on me because I'm getting better. I am extremely pleased, as I've been working really hard.

My teacher on Thursday is Jessica Kreyer, who has for a number of years been the Children's Ballet Mistress for the Boston Ballet's annual production of The Nutcracker. One thing she likes to emphasize is how hard ballet really is, how the traditional way the dance is practiced is designed to push you to the very limit of your strength and endurance until you literally cannot go on. Obviously that's not how we're taught, but she says it is not unusual for the training of top-level professional dancers. She emphasizes this to help us feel better about how often we simply lack the strength to do certainly things correctly. Balance, for example, takes a huge amount of strength! To illustrate her point, she told us about the dancer who played the Sugar Plum Fairy in the most recent Nutcracker at the BB. Her choreography looks light, ethereal, like she's a floating weightless nymph. But to achieve that air, to execute that choreography so beautifully and technically perfect, she has to work so hard that the minute she came offstage she collapsed in a gasping heap. Jessie told us the students of hers who were also in the ballet were shocked to see it, 'cause the movies make you think that dancers just prance offstage with enough breath to have dramatic conversations and possibly stab their costars. But that is how hard the highest levels of ballet really are, and that sort of thing happens once the dancers get offstage all the time.

It was interesting to think about. That for even the very best practitioners of the art there are, it is still so hard, so demanding to them. That to do it right, even when you are a master you will never be able to give less than everything you've got. As one of my all-time favorite quotes says, from some random movie I saw in French class about Edgar Degas, it takes supreme effort to make it look effortless.

Directorial musings-- on running auditions

Though I am happy to get the chance to step out of the director's chair and onto the stage for once, recent events and some interesting conversations have gotten me thinking about directory things, specifically about my thoughts on how to run auditions. There's a lot of etiquette swirling around audition processes which sometimes make it tough, especially for a novice director, to figure out the best way to conduct them to get all the information they need and work things out properly with their actors. Here are some thoughts on how to do it well.

I have a preference for efficient auditions. Some directors like to have people read for all sorts of things just to see what comes of it. It's how I ran my Hamlet auditions, mostly because at the time I was inexperienced enough that I wasn't sure what else to do. I will say that since I didn't know most of the people I saw it gave me some ideas, but ultimately I think it was too much screwing around for too little useful information. So now I try to have people read only a few roles that I would actually consider them for, plus one or two roles that they would like to read. People can surprise you, you must always be wary of pigeonholing them too much, so I like to give them a chance to to impress me with something I may not necessarily have expected. I have the mixed blessing of the fact that I have a very good eye when it comes to quickly sizing something up, which allows me to get a pretty good picture very quickly, but I really don't have a very good review process once I've hit on my initial conclusion. So when I'm right, I'm right, and when I'm wrong, I am dead wrong. Letting people read for a role they want to try for is my way of combating that, and of balancing efficiency with fairness.

The traditional operational form, I think, tends toward keeping things opaque throughout-- not letting the actors know what you're thinking, or doing anything that could compromise your apparent objectivity. Many directors are rightly concerned with maintaining as fair a process as possible, giving everyone who comes out the same chance and the same opportunities, and not making it seem like they are giving anyone any preference, advantage, or disadvantage. It's also good for keeping people from getting wrong ideas about what's going to happen. The opaque, totally egalitarian process is also the most polite way to handle an auditioner that you're pretty sure you don't want to cast. That happens sometimes, unfortunately, that maybe you just don't like the person's style, or maybe it's something out of their control, like you need someone with a deeper voice or a person who's strong enough to pick up another-- that last sounds odd, but I did a show where that had to be considered. So what you do is you listen intently to their piece, giving them as much a chance to prove you wrong as you possibly can, without giving any indication of your opinion. It's also sometimes a good idea to ask them "Can you do it a little angrier?" or something just to make absolutely sure you haven't made a mistake. But the point is you show them the respect of not dismissing them out of hand while still not wasting too much time. At least then they don't leave thinking they didn't get a fair shot, or automatically conclude that they sucked.

The problem with this, however, is that this Chinese Wall approach discourages honest communication between all parties that could lead to workings things out better for everyone. The more I direct, the more inclined I become to a more transparent audition process, more so the more I know the people trying out. I'd rather tell people what I want and see if they can give it to me. I know as an actor I would rather have a director say, "You know, Phoebe, you're reading is too serious, we want a lighter interpretation of the character, can you do that?" or "This is feeling a lot like how you did Puck, and we don't want that for this role. Could you change it up?" and give me a chance to change what I'm doing to something more like what they want, rather than have them silently conclude that I CAN'T do it just because I'm currently not. Some directors feel like they shouldn't say that sort of thing, but I think it makes you more likely to see the real situation-- if an actor actually does have it in them, or if they're probably not going to be able to give you what you want after all.

The Merely Players tryout was completely transparent. I didn't have a single person come out whose acting I wasn't already familiar with, or would have been unhappy to have in the cast. I asked everyone who they wanted to play, and in return told them what I was thinking, explaining what I hoped to see from them. I made my preconceived notions obvious from the start, and invited responses and opinions. The final decision was of course up to me, but I wanted to see how people felt about my intentions and whether or not they could give me what I would ask for, because that would influence the roles they accepted. I even said things like, "I'd like to use you, but know that if you're a significant part in Margaret or too many other shows I won't cast you," so that they could make an informed choice and I wouldn't have to replace an actor I picked but couldn't end up using. It allowed me to get a cast I was satisfied with while still making the show as practically functional as possible.

You can blend the two styles, but it's tricky and requires judgment. Sometimes it can benefit you to be more open with one person than with another-- if, for example, you want to make someone you have a working relationship with aware that you want to push them out of their comfort zone, but also show respect to someone you know you're not going to cast. But you need to make sure that rumors don't get spread that might lead to resentment or assumptions of bias. Make it clear in that case that you've taken someone into your confidence for the sake of getting the best fit for roles, and that they are not to make assumptions or consider anything promised or definite until the cast list comes out.

And I know some actors go into auditions with prejudices and preconceived notions of their own about how the process should go. To that I say, respond to your director as much as you can. If they ask you change your performance, do the best you can to make the change, even if it's outside your comfort zone. Do your best to give them what they want. If they ask you a reasonable question that is actually helpful to their casting process, answer it honestly even if it doesn't conform to your notion of how auditions traditionally go. You have no idea how frustrating it was to me when I asked an actor what they wanted, and they refused to answer for ages because they had a sense that it was not appropriate to "make demands during casting." The answer would have helped me, and I was explicitly giving permission!

So, yeah, just some thoughts from my experience and preferences. Others of you who go to theater auditions, or have had the chance to hold them, what do you all think? What do you think works best?

Touch boundaries

I was in an audition situation recently where I had to do an emotional scene with a partner who I felt was a strong, cooperative actor. As the scene reached its emotional point, he put his arm around me for emphasis. I didn't know this guy at all, and normally, I would not choose to allow a stranger to touch me like that, especially by presumption. But in the context of the scene we were doing, a scene meant to impress the directors with our performances, I was fine with him doing it and in fact kind of glad that he was willing to make that effort despite the boldness it required. It made the interaction feel more complete, more real.

I believe in absolute bodily autonomy. There is no "fair play" when it comes to your physical boundaries, you have the right to say at every minute on every occasion whether or not a touch of any kind is acceptable to you. But sometimes I wish it were more acceptable in our culture to be casually physical. Our culture has kind of decided that unless you are quite young, closely related, or necessarily both, touch is an indicator of romantic connection or sexual interest rather than part of the way human beings are naturally inclined to interact with each other. And if you don't want to convey either of those things, your safest bet is to just not touch somebody. I often find myself feeling resistant to making or accepting physical contact for reasons other than because contact is unwelcome. I worry that I will come off as boundary crossing, or indicating an interest that does exist, or inappropriate because of my current romantic status. (I also worry that if I allow some people to touch me others I'm less comfortable with will think they can do the same, though that's another issue entirely.)

That bugs me because it's a cultural notion that I don't want to have to deal with. I don't like the idea that my actions are limited because people will make assumptions about those actions that are incorrect. I don't like the idea that there's something to be automatically on guard against as far as touch is concerned, because that's not part of normal human interaction and it always means an intrusion or an advance. Again, I'm not suggesting that people should have to get more comfortable with touch. I'm just wishing certain views and attitudes that contribute to people not being comfortable with touch were not part of our collective culture.

I remember in my run of The Prince Comes of Age, I had interactions with Calliope Desenberg, for whom it was her first larp. Not only was I impressed by her willingness to throw herself in despite her inexperience, but also by how she would take my hand when she spoke to me. It was gutsy and real and made the experience of roleplaying with her stronger. Her lack of fear in that area made me wish that I did the same thing more often.

Touch is healthy. It's one of the reasons massage can be healing; even laying your hand on someone encourages blood flow to that area, which can speed recovery and cleansing. Babies who aren't held and touched enough don't develop normally, it's such an important part of their formative period. People who don't experience some kind of physical contact on a regular basis, even something as simple as handshakes or pats on the shoulder, are much more prone to physical unwellness. I don't really like the notion that the optimum state of affairs is that we all have a bubble around us that it is necessarily creepy and wrong to move out of. I've heard that in some circles even tapping someone on the shoulder without permission is considered inappropriate, and yes, while everyone has the right to totally determine their own boundaries and I'm never going to tell someone who feels that way that they can't choose that if they want to, way to operate off the assumption that all touch is a potential violation and an unnatural interaction between human beings.

But at the same time, I am glad that we have the notion that touch can be an intrusive thing and you are not allowed to just go around touching whoever you want. Forget the creepier and more dangerous manifestations of being who do not respect boundaries; there are definitely casual huggers I know who I wish would cut it out, to which my reaction tends to be, "We don't have this kind of relationship." It's not that I think they're so wrong or inappropriate for being that way, I just don't really want to participate in it. I should have that right, as much as the no-shoulder-tapping person should so that they feel physically safe. But I do wish people formed their personal preferences based on their comfort rather than from the influence of weird social pressures that may not necessarily reflect the truth.

How does anybody ever get a play put on?

This weekend I made a point of looking up as many theaters that accept open script submissions that I could find. I sent out a bunch of things, and am planning on sending out several more. I'm fairly pessimistic about whether anything will come of it, but at the moment it's all I really know to do right now.

I hear of classmates of mine getting productions here and there, and I don't understand how they do it. Do they know people? Are they just luckier? I hope so, because the alternative is to think that I'm just not good enough and they're all so much better than me. I really really don't want to believe that.

I have a lot of moments where I can't quit thinking that nothing's ever going to come of my writing. That I'm wasting two years and putting myself in debt for a degree that's never going to get me anywhere. But it's what I want, and the alternative is not really making me happy, so I guess I just need to keep working on making it happen. Guess I just wish I knew it would pay off eventually. I could struggle forever if I was sure that it was getting me somewhere, but it's hard to keep going when you're not at all sure your effort isn't ultimately going to come to nothing. Positive thinking has never been my strong suit, but I resolved this Lent to try to do more of it. That's why I'm trying to take positive actions, because sometimes you can control how you act a lot more easily than you can control how you think.

I am beginning to want more and more to just do it myself. To start my own theater company where I can act and write as I please. I'm tired of waiting around for other people to decide whether or not I'm allowed. I'm not sure if this is a crazy idea, as it probably takes a lot more capital than I have free to get something like that going, but I hate being at the mercy of other people. You guys all know that I am much more inclined to do all the work myself if it gets me what I want rather than wait around for somebody else's permission. Unfortunately I'm not sure if this is just plain too far outside my means to handle under my own power.