Disappointed

So you know that "perfect" opportunity for my dark farce? The one that I submitted to on Saturday? Well, I've been rejected already. Hopes dashed? Why? Apparently they wanted NYC playwrights only.

Now, I tend to pride myself on being the sort of person who reads and follows submission guidelines to the letter. I don't recall seeing anything about NYC playwrights only. (Of course not. If I had I wouldn't have submitted, duh.) Still, it can't be changed that that is what they want. I am not that that. My play--unread--has been rejected.

I think this may be a case where a posting meant for a local group spread beyond the theatre's expectations. The form rejection email sounded surprised that they got responses from around the country. (At least I wasn't the only idiot.) If there wasn't the stipulation in the posting (at least the one I saw) I don't have to feel as bad about overlooking that requirement, but it doesn't change the fact that this is an opportunity lost. Not to mention a waste of postage. It's disappointing. I really do need to find someone to do this play. It is the most lightweight of my full-lengths, but I believe it is the most fully formed (partially because it is the only one I've actually had the energy to rewrite after the initial production). Someday I hope it can find a home. I just will have to keep searching and submitting and hoping. Yes, Pseudo-Kinesis will be performed again!

Counter Resolutionary

I don't make New Year's resolutions, but I did make some annual goals. That one about journaling at least twice week has already fallen apart. The good news is that when I was not journaling I was doing some actual playwriting. Plus I made two submissions this week. So, I'm being productive. I'm just not journaling.

One of the plays I sent out yesterday is the revised version of my first full-length play. The audience reception when an earlier version of the play was performed at a small festival in 2004 is what encouraged me to focus on playwriting. Unfortunately, even though I collaborated with some respected peers to come up with what I feel is a much stronger script (dropped stuff that hadn't worked on stage/expanded stuff that did), I haven't been able to successfully pitch it anywhere else. I gave up on it for a while.

Maybe people just don't like. Maybe it's not that good. But I have a fondness for it. I think one of the problem with marketing it is that the play is simply a zany farce. There is no higher meaning. It is not a political or social commentary of any kind. It's just fun, and it seems that so many theatres looking for new works are looking for plays of "substance." I tried hitting some community summer stock theatres, which do tend to lean toward lighter fare, but this play also has some very dark humor. The lead's wife shoots herself in the head on page three. That's just not the comedy that most blue-haired, barn-going, summer audiences want.

Still, there is a warm place in my heart for this script. I hope some twisted person will read it and decide to put it on. I hope I get to see it again.

Cultural Degeneration

I don't want to write about the issues of the writers' strike. Who's right, who's wrong. I don't want to get into that. What I'm thinking about is the cultural impact of the writers' strike. The on-going nature of the strike is now going to impact the fall television season as well and the movie industry could begin to be impacted by the dearth of scripts as well. So, my question is what will this do to American culture?

Sadly, a precious minority of our society may look for quality entertainment elsewhere: quality tv or movies they may have missed; foreign tv and movies; books; or (dare I say it?) theatre. But I fear that hordes of couch potatoes will take what they are given. More reality shows! Re-runs of comedies they've seen so many times they know the words by heart! Even more reality shows (preferably focussing on people doing stupid or embarassing things).

It reminds me of the movie Idiocracy. In it, two people of average (or probably slightly below average) intelligence get sent to the future where they are by far the most intelligent people in the country. The scenario is that over the years the intellectual set were too focussed on career and accomplishments to have children; whereas, the undereducated popped out more kids than they could afford. (Eerily plausible.) The result is a society of where the most popular tv show is "Ow, My Balls," and they water plants with a sports drink because the commercials tell them to.

Sure, Idiocracy is a comedy, but it scares me. A lot.

Maybe this is just because I am the poster child for erudition. I have two master's degrees (and would like to take more classes). I have a strong affinity for non-musical theatre. I love words, perhaps even more than sentences. I definitely wouldn't say that all of society should be a nerd like me. But a world full of the blissfully ignorant is a nightmare to me. But I see this nightmare more and more in my waking hours. With the writers' strike continuing I would not be surprised to see "Ow, My Balls" as part of the Fox fall line up.

I must admit that my tastes are not always as highfalutin as this post may make them see. I watch some fluffy reality shows and bad crime dramas. But not all the time. I use these things to give my mind a much needed rest. But I am sure to work out my brain before it rests. All rest and no workout creates apathy. Is that where we are going?

No, this is not all about the decline of the tv line up. But I see (hopefully over-pessimisstically) the decline in intellectual entertainment as symptomatic of general ignorance. General ignorance begets prejudice, intolerance, and irrational fear. Those things create a society fraught with tension and violence. That is what I fear. People can watch whtat they want.

But it's tied together, isn't it? I think back to when I started listening to NPR in the mornings. (Yes, I am that snobby.) I was listening to the radio morning show full of stupid humor. Before hitting my coffeee fill stupid humor can be just right. However, that day I remember listening to the callers. Things that were obvious jokes to me and the djs were being taken as fact by the callers. This is how they were learning about the world. That scared me. I switched to NPR, which can be annoyingly smug, but I felt like I was no longer supporting the propagation of ignorance.

Phew. This is longer than I thought it would be, so I'll wrap up.

Okay. I'm 34 and childless, like those people who caused the decline in Idiocracy. But I believe that's not because of my career or my intellectual pursuits but because it took me a while to find the guy I fell in love with. Regardless, we do intend to have children. But what will the world be like for those children? Will the school yard talk be all about last night's episode of "Ow, My Balls?" Will there still be art and beauty? If so, will it be prevalent or will it be hard to find? Will conversation and debate still be possible?

Hopefully I'm being overly nihilistic. But I am worried. But, hey, did you see the crazy American Idol rejects the other night?

Relaxation, Inspiration...stagnation

I had another massage yesterday. While lying there facedown and naked, I got an idea. An idea for a short play. Probably a one-act. Maybe a ten-minute. As my body became more and more relaxed the idea became more and more clear. On the train ride home I started to write it...in a journal that I just happened to buy on sale yesterday. The cover of the journal is imprinted with the words "If you wish to be a writer, write!"

I try. I try to write, but time seems so fleeting. I work. I'm planning a wedding. And another party. And I want to work out more. And, can't I just enjoy some time with my friends? And after work I just need to relax. Just for a bit...

Sure I can steal a few minutes of work to create largely unformatted and uneditted blog posts, but working on a play is much more involved.

As I showed the other night.

I came home. I made dinner. I watched some TV. I played some Wii. I sent some emails. Then I started to write. I started to write about half an hour before I should have gone to bed. I was up for an hour and a half. The next day I was exhausted.

Once I start writing I can't stop. (Usually. At least in the early drafts. Rewrites are harder.)

I need to find a way to balance all the things I want to do. I don't know how to do that. It's frustrating. I know I could do so much, if I only had the time.

Back to work!

Trashing More Than Dresses

In researching wedding photography I have discovered a phenomenon of which I was not previously aware: the "trash the dress" photo session. One or more days after the wedding the bride (with or without her groom) meets with a photographer and poses for a bunch of artsy photos that will ultimately destroy her wedding dressing. Activities may include crawling across the ground or swimming in a lake. The supposed idea behind this is that the dress won't be worn again, so the bride might as well have some fun with it.

Okay, I'll admit that some of the "trash the dress" photos I've seen have been pretty cool. Still, I find this tradition disturbing on a few levels:

1. As though the the price many women pay for their dresses weren't excessively wasteful enough, now they are literally turning the dress to trash. That dress could be donated through one of a variety of charities that provide dresses to those who would not have the means to have one. Or, slightly less charitably, the dress could be sold to someone who doesn't mind a pre-worn dress in exchange for a more reasonable price. Even the idea of preserving the dress (although usually it is never worn again) at least has the prospect of reuse. In a world where we use once then throw away so many items, "trash the dress" is one more example.
2. Maybe it's the writer in me, but I do see symbolism in things. In addition to the chance that one's daughter or granddaughter might where it, the other reason women preserved their dresses is because their wedding dresses were special to them. Preserving the dress meant preserving that day. It keeps the wedding day important, significant, and cherished. What does trashing the dress do?

Of course, maybe this is just tied to the recent trends in dramatic wedding photography. My grandfather was a professional photographer for many years and did hundreds, probably thousands of weddings. Wedding portraits were a few set shots taken quickly (usually on the chapel alter). The time was so short that the guests could actually linger outside with rice and not be completely bored. Most of the photos from the day were to record the actual events of the day: the ceremony, the cake-cutting, the dancing. Those were more important than a bunch of poses.

But then people wanted to get artsy. They wanted their wedding photographs taken in every scenic spot in or around where they were getting married. The extensive list of required shots combined with the travel time led to a trend in long, tedious (for the guests) gaps between ceremonies and receptions.

From that came a new trend (that my mother, in particular, really hates). Since couples didn't want their guests to have to wait while the pictures are being taken, they started doing the pictures before the ceremony. Although I'm not into superstitions, I still like the idea of my groom and I seeing each other for the first time as I walk down the aisle.

I don't like the posed wedding shots. It's good to have a few of the portrait style, but it is the day I want to remember. I'm not trying to be a model. I don't need an album full of me and John, no matter how good we may look on that day (and I do intend to look good).

Some friends of mine eloped to Mexico last year. They hired an officiant and a photographer. They have an album full of beautiful, really gorgeous pictures of the the two of them on the beach. The pictures are truly stunning. They could easily appear in bridal magazines. But they also made me a bit sad. They were beautiful, but they were alone. That's not what I want.

I want pictures of us, but I also want pictures of our friends and family. Hopefully they will be pictures of everyone happy and having a good time. I want pictures that chronicle details that I may have missed. I want pictures that remind me of my favority moments. Although I hope that pictures of me are generally flattering I don't need vanity shots. Trust me. I'm vain enough.

Luckily, there seems to be somewhat of a counter-trend to what was described above. Many wedding photographers, including the one I hired specialize in "photojournalist" style. This emphasizes candid and semi-candid moments over poses. It emphasizes real events. Sure, we'll have some portraits taken. We're doing them at the ceremony site. Since the reception is at the same site our guests will start cocktail hour. We intend to be able to join them for at least half of that.

I know the argument for the extravagence and the vanity is that you only have this "one day." I would remind brides that that "one day" is supposed to be a commencement not a stand alone event. I think there should be a trend toward smaller weddings and bigger anniversary parties. Every anniversary should justify a bigger, more extravagence. Heck, if through some miracle of longevity John and I make it 50 years together, I will happily blow large portion of our kids'/grandkids' inheritance to have the best party of our lives. Sorry, kids.

I apologize to anyone who many read this who has an album full of dramatic portraits from their wedding day or who may have a details depiction of a wedding dress being artfully destroyed. That's your perogative. You have to do what makes you happy. That's just not what does it for me.

PS-I'm spending $500 on my attire (dress, shoes, accessories). Even at that "bargain" price, I have no intention of trashing my dress.

Because it is there

It is appropriate that Sir Edmund Hillary died this week. This is the week that I began dieting in earnest for perhaps the first time in my life. The tie is that like Everest in Hillary's legendary quip: I often eat food because it is there. Sure, there are foods that I truly enjoy. I cook and am a bit of a foodie. But I also have a mean forage instinct. Free sample? Yes, please. Donuts in the office break room? Of course! Leftover donuts still in the office break room in the afternoon? Thank you, sir, may I have another?!

Although I was a chubby kid, I received a gifted elongation after puberty. From that time onward my weight have varied a bit, but even at my heaviest I was not particularly fat, despite eating habits that tend to be quite poor. I guess I have a lucky metabolism complemented by a fairly active lifestyle (with mostly incidental activity, like a lot of walking, rather than an actual work out routine).

But I'm trying to change that. Myself and two of my girlfriends are trying to lose weight before my wedding. I'm only trying to lose 10 pounds. There's not much more that I need to lose. But this is more than a desire to look pretty in pictures on The Big Day. I want to be healthier. There is this guy with whom I am hoping to spend many happy years. Additionally, we hope to have children, which will already be potentially challenging because of my age, so I want to be as healthy as I can to facilitate that. In order to do that I need to eat healthier, exercise more, and avoid ingesting things just because they are there.

There is what I refer to as the "Bon Bon Incident." Before coming up with a more strategic approach to weight loss and health I was just trying to increase my intake of fresh fruits and vegetables. I wasn't thinking that much about the rest of my diet. I generally included some 100 calorie treat for dessert in my lunch. One day last week I chose not to. I knew I should decrease the amount of sugar consume. Still, in the afternoon, I got a craving for sugar and chocolate. *Luckily,* there were still some holiday treats in the office. So I ate a truffle from a box of candies.

That day my friends and I happened to join a web site for tracking food and exercise. It has already begun to open my eyes about my eating habits. Starting with that truffle. According to the site that particular truffle was 220 calories. Now, when I ate it I didn't think it was healthy. I didn't think it was low-cal. But I didn't think it was 220 calories. The web site recommends I eat 1571 calories a day to meet my weight loss goal. That truffle was a big chunk of that. And here's the worst part. It wasn't very good. There are a lot of treats that would have been a lot fewer calories that I would have enjoyed a lot more. I ate that truffle because it was there.

So no more of that. I'm going to think about what I put in my mouth. I'm not saying that everything I will eat will be healthy and low-cal. Since I don't need to lose much weight I can be allowed to splurge somewhat. But when I splurge it is going to be on something really good. Something I really want. Not just something that is there.

I remember theatre...

Besides not doing much writing or submitting since moving to Chicago 6 months ago, I also haven't seen any theatre here. (I drove back to see one weekend of the Pittsburgh New Works Festival.) Okay, I did see a staged reading that a few friends were involved with in December. And I've seen some pretty theatrical concerts (i.e. The Flaming Lips, Cold War Kids, and Dresden Dolls). In fact on of the opening acts for the Dresden Dolls was a dance performance of the Romeo and Juliet story set to "Toxic" by Britney Spears.

Still, I haven't really seen a play in Chicago.

Seeing plays is one of the to-do items on my 2008 uber list. I start on Saturday. We are going to The Steppenwolf to see Good Boys and True by Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa. I'm very excited. Plus, it's good for me. Seeing theatre always inspires more writing. Part of my responsibility as a playwright needs to be see plays. It's important. And it's fun.

In 2008 I promise to both write and see plays. Hopefully some of the plays I get to see will be mine, but I need to go regardless.

The difference between "except for" and "in spite of"

Love is the difference between "except for" and "in spite of."

In my younger days, I occasionally thought I was in love. In the back (or sometimes front) of my mind, however, it was actually "I love you but..." I felt the person was perfect "except for..." There followed a list of flaws. They may have been superficial (appearance) or more substantive (behavior). In my foolishness I believed that if one those things (or at least a few of them) were different I could truly love this person. Ultimately those relationships ended, perhaps because of my list of their flaws or their lists of mine. I went on that way for many years.

Once I met someone I truly fell in love with I learned the truth. I see his flaws. He sees mine. But I don't focus on changing them. I love him in spite of those things. In fact, I can't imagine changing them. Without them, John is not John.

Love is not blind. Infatuation is blind. Love sees and accepts. In a moment a habit may be annoying, but with some distance it is endearing.

There are no perfect people. There are, however, people who are perfect for each other. People who's flaws complement the other's. People who are in love.

I have my uber list of over 50 goals (some large, some small) for this new year. So many of them involve being a healthier, happier, and just plain better person. A lot of the motivation for that is to be better for John, but I know he will love me no matter how many or few items get checked off the list. He does not make lists, but if he chooses to change or not change this year I will love him. "In spite of" not "except for."