I don't get it. Our acting prime minister certainly appears to be crazy. He's practically foaming at the mouth about the opposition parties forming a "coalition".
1. Stephen Harper is running a coalition government - a joint effort by the Reform party and the Progressive Conservative party. These were two distict parties with differing platforms that found a way to work together to improve their collective influence.
2. When in the opposition, Stephen Harper actively sought out the support of other parties to help him defeat the then Liberal minority government and create a "coalition" to rule in its place. He didn't have any problem working with socialists and separatists then, why should anyone else have a problem working with them now?
3. Iggy isn't forming a coalition, he's forming a consensus. That's how minority governments are supposed to work. The leader finds common ground among disparate points of view to create a governing framework that best suits the majority of Canadians, even if no one party represents that majority view.
When the election rolls around, we seriously need to ask ourselves this: Who do we want as prime minister? Do we want a statesman and scholar who understands complex issues, develops consensus among conflicting views, and finds ways for all the parties to work together, or do we want someone who bullies literally anyone who disagrees with him (from within his own party or from outside it) and uses every concievable opportunity to increase his own influence and power (even grandstanding at international press conferences for pity's sake)?
This will not be an election about issues. It will be an election about personalities. Your decision will be a lot easier if every time you hear the word "coalition" come out of Harper's mouth, you pretend he said "consensus". It's certainly what everyone else should be saying.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
If you are an emerging artist...
You need to read this.
And if you still want to be an emerging artist you need to do some serious thinking. While I don't have the benefit of a large inheritance or wealthy spouse, I've been able to make some progress pursuing playwriting in an evenings-and-weekends way.
There comes a point where you have to accept that this will always be the way it is. Even if I get the odd play produced, at the rate that I can create work I can't seriously anticipate ever earning enough writing (even as a full time writer) to compete with the escalating costs of living that come with owning property and having a family. So regardless of success I will always be an evenings-and-weekends artist.
To be honest, that's sometimes hard to live with because you wonder what you "could have" achieved without having to spend so much of your time in meetings or staring at spreadsheets. Of course it also protects you from the possibility that you were always destined to be a charming amateur who would never have made it to the next level.
Aspirations, anyone?
And if you still want to be an emerging artist you need to do some serious thinking. While I don't have the benefit of a large inheritance or wealthy spouse, I've been able to make some progress pursuing playwriting in an evenings-and-weekends way.
There comes a point where you have to accept that this will always be the way it is. Even if I get the odd play produced, at the rate that I can create work I can't seriously anticipate ever earning enough writing (even as a full time writer) to compete with the escalating costs of living that come with owning property and having a family. So regardless of success I will always be an evenings-and-weekends artist.
To be honest, that's sometimes hard to live with because you wonder what you "could have" achieved without having to spend so much of your time in meetings or staring at spreadsheets. Of course it also protects you from the possibility that you were always destined to be a charming amateur who would never have made it to the next level.
Aspirations, anyone?
Friday, May 15, 2009
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Breeding Ignorance
In light of the latest news, I can't wait to have a child. I look forward to informing the school board that I have no interest in my children being educated on Belgium. Our family has always held that Belgium is a conspiracy perpetrated by the Swiss to draw attention away from their chocolate monopoly.
Hey, in Alberta, I have the right to raise my children in whatever sheltered, ignorant way I want. They don't have to be exposed to multiple points of view on a subject, and I certainly don't want to waste my time explaining to them that just because the teacher tells them that many people believe in the concept of Belgium, that doesn't mean that Belgium really exists - I mean, its difficult to convince them that our beliefs supercede the basic laws of geography.
And I certainly don't think "Belgian" is an appropriate lifestyle choice for my children to even hear being mentioned, just in case they decide that they too want to explore the possibility of being from a minor European state. What next, will they start to experiment with Luxembourging?
Another victory for Ed Dullmach and the Con-slave-atives.
Hey, in Alberta, I have the right to raise my children in whatever sheltered, ignorant way I want. They don't have to be exposed to multiple points of view on a subject, and I certainly don't want to waste my time explaining to them that just because the teacher tells them that many people believe in the concept of Belgium, that doesn't mean that Belgium really exists - I mean, its difficult to convince them that our beliefs supercede the basic laws of geography.
And I certainly don't think "Belgian" is an appropriate lifestyle choice for my children to even hear being mentioned, just in case they decide that they too want to explore the possibility of being from a minor European state. What next, will they start to experiment with Luxembourging?
Another victory for Ed Dullmach and the Con-slave-atives.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Another reno project checked off the list.
I made this!Well... I made it with my Dad. Which is still pretty awesome because it's not like he's a carpenter either. He just happens to have a bit more experience with do-it-yourselfing. And he had the sawhorses.
Specifically, I'm talking about that shoe shelf nooked ever so casually into our front entryway. To understand how epic this project was, you need to understand that the two flanking walls are not straight. Each shelf is a custom shaped rhombus that fits the space between the two walls at one specific height.
Since this was my Dad and I this involved two trips to the hardware store, the death of one measuring tape, and approximately 35% more wood than a professional might need (anybody want a black, oddly shaped rhombus or two?) but it instantly transformed the cleanliness of our entry way and is still satisfying to look at more than a week later. Fully satisfying - and a goal on my 101 list.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Why there (probably) shouldn't be a Stormcrow Productions theatre company
Okay - lets go blog hopping for a sec.
This discussion starts here. Adam (I think rightly) takes a hard look at what the point of an artist driven theatre company is headed towards.
A highlight:
"Together you will form a company. You'll put together a mission statement. It will include words like "enlighten, challenge and inspire." The mission statement is a lie. The real mission statement of the company is:
To showcase us.
This is your fatal flaw. It will be the thing that causes much pain later if you don't realize this."
Then there is a rebuttal from Flux Theatre here.
To quote the rebuttal:
"But what really rubbed me the wrong way is the scorn he has for the idea that the 'real' mission statement of an artist-run organization is to showcase the artists involved (his word, definitely not mine). He describes this as the fatal flaw of a failed artist run organization."
"That's where the most insidious ideas of the post live. Court Theatre produces plays and so does Flux. The work of artists is 'showcased' in both examples. So why is it all right for an institution to produce the work of artists, but not artists to produce the work themselves?"
and finally...
"The mission of any real work of art is nothing more or less than the experience of it. If that experience could be put into a statement, you could just read the statement, and skip the play."
I think that Augusts rebuttal misses the key point of the initial criticism.
The artist driven theatre company is formed, Adam points out, because a group of like-minded artists get together to create a show. Things work out well enough that they do it again and soon enough there is a "company".
It is not that this "company" doesn't have intentions for how their art will engage and affect their audience/community but they exist rather nebulously, held together by their shared intentions, styles, ways of doing theatre, etc.
What is important, however, is that unlike an art-making institution style company, these artist-driven companies are steered by individual artists. These artists are frequently involved in the company in a as-long-as-it-suits-my-interests sort of way (not in the financial or even "learning experience" sense of interest, necessarily, but at least in the until-I'm-not-interested-in-making-this-kind-of-theatre sort of way). That is, the artists expect this "company" to continue to do what they want until they are done with it. An art-making institution by contrast retains artists until it is done with them.
So, when an artist driven company is forced to choose between, say producing a risky-but-important work and a more popularly known one (which will likely sell more tickets) the purpose of its existance (to make "our" kind of work) can trump financial considerations. This is a good thing, in its way, but Adam's point is that once an artist-driven "company" recruits a board and becomes an entity in its own right, it has to, at some point, be responsible for its own health, even when that stands at odds with what the artists who started it in the first place want to do.
At this point we might well say, so what? If artists want to drive the bus, and put their company in a more risky position then so be it. But the catch 22 quickly appears - these very artist-driven companies want to do more than eek out shoestring budget pieces in their spare time. And since they don't attract enough audience bucks to pay for more (better sets, salaries for actors, etc.) they look to government for money to supplement their budget. And the government peskily insists that money be handed out to an agency with a board that will control the finances to ensure the ongoing viability of the company. And this artist-driven agency is forced to quantify its mission and purpose in an ongoing way, and that's when all those mushy feely words about community engagement and educational opportunities and what not get written down. Because nobody could get government money for "We want to make our theatre, our way, please pay us and hope we don't have a falling out."
And I think at core the issue is that these artist-driven companies are most often birthed with no intention to create an independent institution that will last long past all of its founding members. This can happen naturally over time, but more often than not they either die out as people move on (c.f. the last theatre company I was a part of) or at some point get a board and then bemoan when that board hijacks or hamstrings the company in the interest of sustainability.
"But its not fair," complains an artist in an artist-driven company. "We are important in lots of ways and deserve funding without having to worry about doing popular shows."
I think these artist-driven organizations do deserve funding. I think they provide lots of run-off benefits to society that cannot be captured in ticket revenue. But I think they should stop pretending to be something they are not. They should be able to say, "me and my buddies want to do this particular show, in this way, and it's going to cost X (including real salaries for actors, directors, technicians, etc.), and our tickets will get us back Y. Please give us X-Y dollars, government body."
"But what if this specific play offends some people? The government won't want to fund it."
Okay. So there should be some kind of arms-length agency in charge of doling out funds to non-institutional artist clusters, that could provide the funding decisions well enough in advance to allow theatres to get booked etc., that would be on a totally different government ledger from the usual support for the arts institutions in town.
As a playwright, I'm reading the trends of institutional theatres and seeing that the opportunities for me to flourish there are limited - very limited if I'm not first a brand they can latch on to. So should I start my own tiny semi-professional theatre company (as a couple of my peers have recently, and very bravely, done)? If so, I'll have to pretend that I'm creating an agency that could well survive without me as Artistic/Executive Director. Otherwise I can't imagine getting enough money together to produce a few shows, develop a name, and get to the point where someone else would want to pay for my words.
I'll admit I'm in a surly place right now, but I think the thrust of Adam's argument is very telling - that the motivation for creating a theatre company is frequently at odds with the current mechanisms to finance it.
This discussion starts here. Adam (I think rightly) takes a hard look at what the point of an artist driven theatre company is headed towards.
A highlight:
"Together you will form a company. You'll put together a mission statement. It will include words like "enlighten, challenge and inspire." The mission statement is a lie. The real mission statement of the company is:
To showcase us.
This is your fatal flaw. It will be the thing that causes much pain later if you don't realize this."
Then there is a rebuttal from Flux Theatre here.
To quote the rebuttal:
"But what really rubbed me the wrong way is the scorn he has for the idea that the 'real' mission statement of an artist-run organization is to showcase the artists involved (his word, definitely not mine). He describes this as the fatal flaw of a failed artist run organization."
"That's where the most insidious ideas of the post live. Court Theatre produces plays and so does Flux. The work of artists is 'showcased' in both examples. So why is it all right for an institution to produce the work of artists, but not artists to produce the work themselves?"
and finally...
"The mission of any real work of art is nothing more or less than the experience of it. If that experience could be put into a statement, you could just read the statement, and skip the play."
I think that Augusts rebuttal misses the key point of the initial criticism.
The artist driven theatre company is formed, Adam points out, because a group of like-minded artists get together to create a show. Things work out well enough that they do it again and soon enough there is a "company".
It is not that this "company" doesn't have intentions for how their art will engage and affect their audience/community but they exist rather nebulously, held together by their shared intentions, styles, ways of doing theatre, etc.
What is important, however, is that unlike an art-making institution style company, these artist-driven companies are steered by individual artists. These artists are frequently involved in the company in a as-long-as-it-suits-my-interests sort of way (not in the financial or even "learning experience" sense of interest, necessarily, but at least in the until-I'm-not-interested-in-making-this-kind-of-theatre sort of way). That is, the artists expect this "company" to continue to do what they want until they are done with it. An art-making institution by contrast retains artists until it is done with them.
So, when an artist driven company is forced to choose between, say producing a risky-but-important work and a more popularly known one (which will likely sell more tickets) the purpose of its existance (to make "our" kind of work) can trump financial considerations. This is a good thing, in its way, but Adam's point is that once an artist-driven "company" recruits a board and becomes an entity in its own right, it has to, at some point, be responsible for its own health, even when that stands at odds with what the artists who started it in the first place want to do.
At this point we might well say, so what? If artists want to drive the bus, and put their company in a more risky position then so be it. But the catch 22 quickly appears - these very artist-driven companies want to do more than eek out shoestring budget pieces in their spare time. And since they don't attract enough audience bucks to pay for more (better sets, salaries for actors, etc.) they look to government for money to supplement their budget. And the government peskily insists that money be handed out to an agency with a board that will control the finances to ensure the ongoing viability of the company. And this artist-driven agency is forced to quantify its mission and purpose in an ongoing way, and that's when all those mushy feely words about community engagement and educational opportunities and what not get written down. Because nobody could get government money for "We want to make our theatre, our way, please pay us and hope we don't have a falling out."
And I think at core the issue is that these artist-driven companies are most often birthed with no intention to create an independent institution that will last long past all of its founding members. This can happen naturally over time, but more often than not they either die out as people move on (c.f. the last theatre company I was a part of) or at some point get a board and then bemoan when that board hijacks or hamstrings the company in the interest of sustainability.
"But its not fair," complains an artist in an artist-driven company. "We are important in lots of ways and deserve funding without having to worry about doing popular shows."
I think these artist-driven organizations do deserve funding. I think they provide lots of run-off benefits to society that cannot be captured in ticket revenue. But I think they should stop pretending to be something they are not. They should be able to say, "me and my buddies want to do this particular show, in this way, and it's going to cost X (including real salaries for actors, directors, technicians, etc.), and our tickets will get us back Y. Please give us X-Y dollars, government body."
"But what if this specific play offends some people? The government won't want to fund it."
Okay. So there should be some kind of arms-length agency in charge of doling out funds to non-institutional artist clusters, that could provide the funding decisions well enough in advance to allow theatres to get booked etc., that would be on a totally different government ledger from the usual support for the arts institutions in town.
As a playwright, I'm reading the trends of institutional theatres and seeing that the opportunities for me to flourish there are limited - very limited if I'm not first a brand they can latch on to. So should I start my own tiny semi-professional theatre company (as a couple of my peers have recently, and very bravely, done)? If so, I'll have to pretend that I'm creating an agency that could well survive without me as Artistic/Executive Director. Otherwise I can't imagine getting enough money together to produce a few shows, develop a name, and get to the point where someone else would want to pay for my words.
I'll admit I'm in a surly place right now, but I think the thrust of Adam's argument is very telling - that the motivation for creating a theatre company is frequently at odds with the current mechanisms to finance it.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Doomsday has come for American Theatre!!!
Or so the discussion is going.
It's a discussion that started with some interesting discussion of the Walmartization of American theatre thanks to the dominance of the Broadway system. Basically, if you are an actor anywhere in america and you want to make it, you have to leave the place you grew up in and go to New York and try to be in small shows so that producers will notice you and put you in Broadway shows, after which point you can get acting gigs all over the country because regional theatre companies across the states tend to bring most of their actors in from New York, because there aren't many well developed local actors because anyone local who wants to make it has to leave to go to... well you get it.
I've been thinking about the Calgary theatre scene. From the actor's point of view things are a lot better than that. If I go to a proffessional theatre company show in Calgary now, odds are I'll recognize at least half the cast. Okay, that's partly a function of me going to a lot of theatre, but it does tell you that those people are Calgarians who act professionally rather than imports from Toronto or New York. The same cannot be said on the playwriting side (which I guess is part of why this post is turning into a rant). I think you'll find that both the biggest and the hottest professional theatre companies in calgary are the ones doing big Canadian names (mostly from T.O.) or shows that were big a couple years ago on Broadway. Next year we'll see Drowsy Chaperone roll through at ATP or Ground Zero or whathaveyou and it will be touted as a hot Canadian success (successful because it went to Brodway? maybe) Meanwhile the state of affairs for the emerging playwright is largely one of starting out with a blend of readings (sponsored in part by companies who want to maintain their development cred without, you know, producing new work) and smaller, you-probably-haven't-heard-of-them semi-pros. I'm not going to say that isn't an important training ground for new playwrights - its a critical part of the learning process. But if a calgary playwright makes it through that process, it is currently only in order to get smaller and gradually larger theatres in Vancouver or Toronto to produce your work so that someday you'll be a name in those other places so that your home town might produce you. It doesn't seem like my mentors are getting produced in Calgary either. I know that they are writing too, but they've practically vanished off the main stages here because they haven't gone off to the hotter places to write "hits". So what hope do I have of getting onto a home town mainstage? Would it be too communist of me to suggest that any theatre company getting money from the province should be required to use a minimum percentage of albertans in their season - in each component considered separately - so a minimum percent of techies, actors, directors, playwrights, etc. Not that it needs to be all by any stretch.
Last week I had the idea that I should apply for a grant from somewhere and study in a number of Canadian cities what percentage of the productions were local, provincial, or Canadian by script, actor, all staff, and where their money came from (private, grant, ticket sales) per show weighted by attendance (or something) but then I realized that while I could probably get such a random grant, I would then actually have to do the work - which would be work - and I'd almost rather not know the answer.
There is one light of optimism in the Calgary theatre scene - seems like we've got a suprisingly healthy little political theatre scene blossoming. That's almost necessarily local, but it's not really my scene so it's not much help to me as a writer.
Maybe I should stop reading so many vancouver, toronto, london and new york theatre blogs. It's like - if things are so bad there, are we about to get steamrolled by the fallout? If I could, through another decade of work, emerge in a place where a Calgary mainstage would even consider producing my work - will there be any theatres left to do so?
Me (and my bald spot) used to actually make theatre:
Now we watch it.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
In case you were counting
I've just missed a lot of consecutive weeks (3) in my goal to blog weekly for the duration of my 101 in 1001 challenge thing. For the record, I'm currently sitting at 7.0% complete in 8.3% elapsed time.
Since I'm not a time traveller, I won't be able to go back and make up those blog entries, or update my facebook either, or, frankly, edit the goal list to fix several problems with it. Since I'm not a time traveller, I also won't run into anyone who is in love with me even though I've never met them. So you take the good with the bad.
One more day until I can put a terrible March behind me.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
I guess it could have been on 45.
I like this.
Saw the video, bought the CD on Amazon. Can't decide if that's new school or old school.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
A 101 Update
According to my spreadsheet, I am 4.87% complete my 101 goals in 4.80% of the elapsed time. Given that I've already botched my facebook goal, and really don't feel that bad about it, I'm never going to make 100% exactly, but still feels like I'm at least sort of on track. And a lot of my goals are summer based, so we'll see.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Round 1
This weekend past Amanda and I tackled our first "home improvement" project. By weekend's end I had been to Home Despot three times. I had used both of my drills, two wrenches, six screwdrivers, two tape measures, a laser level, and a stud finder. I had once again discovered what a questionable carpenter I am. And yet I think it turned out okay.
I guess I should have taken a "before" shot. That hutch was white, not centered on the wall, and had some hideous old knobs. It was not made with love.
Monday, February 09, 2009
A Weekend in the Theatre
This weekend past I had a little theatre blitz of my own (as I can't afford the real "theatre blitz" and I'm not important enough to get comped, and all my hookups have left the industry). Friday evening I went down to Inglewood to catch a spirited production of Richard II. I had been debating all day between a couple shows, I picked Richard II because, seriously, how often does one of the "lesser" Shakespeares get produced in Cow-Town? It had that kind of old-school community production feel - actors in a wide range of talent levels, a kind of surreal mess of classical and modern costumes and references, and a huge cast. It also had video clips that were suprisingly well executed given the obvious shoe-string budget, and overall I was fairly satisfied with the show - I pretty much always understood what they were saying and what was going on and I didn't go in with any idea of the plot.
The next afternoon Lady Rose and I went to the pay-what-you-can matinee of "Doubt" at Theatre Calgary. We blundered into some awesome seats and counted ourselves lucky. The show-thats-just-been-made-into-a-movie thing led to a lot of buzz about this show, but I have to admit I didn't think that much of it. Don't get me wrong, I thought the cast did a great job, and the set was pretty amazing, but for all the hype I thought the script was a little weak. Not, perhaps, the best pick for TC's first one-act in a long time. It felt like it should have been the first act of a two act play, where the real meat, digging down to the truth of the characters, and facing the real depth of the issue got done in the second act. As it was, everyone got off a little easy as far as I was concerned, with pretty minor consequences. Not that you go to TC for heavy psychological drama in general, but when you decide to take the plunge and face the dark secrets of the catholic priesthood you better damn well deliver. Nuff said.
That evening, we went back to our roots. A brand new community theatre company doing their first show in the Pumphouse. David Ives. Still weirds me out a little since Hidden Insanity's first show was at the Pumphouse and featured a script by David Ives - one of the plays from the set presented this evening. Perhaps its just the distance of a few years, but I really noticed how painfully shallow Ives is in this production. The actors did a good job with what they had - nice timing, clear characterizations, good energy and tight physicality. But its all just hyperintellectual sketch comedy and at that point I'd rather see original work than reruns of the now somewhat dated Ives material. Still it brought me back to a happy time in my life. In the last scene one characters prop cokebottle glasses broke on a particularly resounding death-of-trotsky and the audience couldn't help but laugh along as the cast valiantly tried to hold it together to finish the scene. These little disasters, it seems to me, are as vital as any success in making that show memorable for the company and driving them back to the theatre for years to come. If you doubt it, ask me about the "fringe flu" sometime.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Monday, February 02, 2009
The Big Heist
On Sunday I witnessed a crime. Sort of.
We had just walked out of the Best Buy, still on the sidewalk outside, when the door alarm buzzed and a skinny white dude blazed past us with two PS3s under his arms, the boxes still clad in those wired-to-the-outside-of-the-box security tag things. He dove into a shitty looking car which then streaked away into the parking lot while him and his companions in the car hooted victoriously. We looked back at the Best Buy but there was no response.
So this is the state of criminal mastermindery these days, wait until the door is open, then grab what you want and run. I wonder if they even bothered to scout the store ahead of time? When I worked at a chapters I did keep an eye out for suspicious individuals but we had security in the store so I didn't really worry about it much. I certainly wouldn't have chased a thief out into the parking lot. And I guess neither did the Best Buy door person, who had wished us a good day just moments earlier when we walked through those same doors. What is the function of that dude if its not security? Did that make my Best Buy experience any less latex glove?
I was further disgusted by the thought that since loser boy was stealing two PS3s, it wasn't even a case of stealing it in order to play with it, at least one if not both units would likely be on Craigslist by the end of the day. Forget planning your heist, you don't even need a fence anymore.
But then what really brought me low was to realize that I was the one who was in a position to see what happened, but it didn't even occur to me to look at their liscence plate before they were gone. I was busy looking at the Best Buy to see what their response would be. So I'm just another warm body in the herd of slack-jawed do-nothings that feed these parasites with our inaction. And you just know if the Best Buy had tighter security I would grumble about the inconvenience. I want big wide automatic doors so I can stroll in without being delayed, and the Best Buy is so dependent on my good will that they have to tolerate the odd grab and dash just to keep me pacified. And they just roll the cost of those losses onto the sticker prices and so really it costs them nothing as long as us cattle keep buying their "best".
We had just walked out of the Best Buy, still on the sidewalk outside, when the door alarm buzzed and a skinny white dude blazed past us with two PS3s under his arms, the boxes still clad in those wired-to-the-outside-of-the-box security tag things. He dove into a shitty looking car which then streaked away into the parking lot while him and his companions in the car hooted victoriously. We looked back at the Best Buy but there was no response.
So this is the state of criminal mastermindery these days, wait until the door is open, then grab what you want and run. I wonder if they even bothered to scout the store ahead of time? When I worked at a chapters I did keep an eye out for suspicious individuals but we had security in the store so I didn't really worry about it much. I certainly wouldn't have chased a thief out into the parking lot. And I guess neither did the Best Buy door person, who had wished us a good day just moments earlier when we walked through those same doors. What is the function of that dude if its not security? Did that make my Best Buy experience any less latex glove?
I was further disgusted by the thought that since loser boy was stealing two PS3s, it wasn't even a case of stealing it in order to play with it, at least one if not both units would likely be on Craigslist by the end of the day. Forget planning your heist, you don't even need a fence anymore.
But then what really brought me low was to realize that I was the one who was in a position to see what happened, but it didn't even occur to me to look at their liscence plate before they were gone. I was busy looking at the Best Buy to see what their response would be. So I'm just another warm body in the herd of slack-jawed do-nothings that feed these parasites with our inaction. And you just know if the Best Buy had tighter security I would grumble about the inconvenience. I want big wide automatic doors so I can stroll in without being delayed, and the Best Buy is so dependent on my good will that they have to tolerate the odd grab and dash just to keep me pacified. And they just roll the cost of those losses onto the sticker prices and so really it costs them nothing as long as us cattle keep buying their "best".
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
In the nicest possible way of course
So I got home yesterday to find a rejection message on my answering machine from a pretty major theatre company. It's kind of like getting slapped, but you're slapped by Angelina Jolie, and she's wearing a velvet glove, and nothing else.
I mean, I'm trying to stay positive and see the bright side where its an honour that they went out of their way to call me, but underneath it's still hard. Despite a mission (which has lasted more than a decade) to get better at dealing with rejection, it still eats at me. Steals my enthusiasm for other projects - which makes me even more grumpy, if that's possible. And all the successes in the world don't seem to take the edge off.
So no, I didn't go to the hardware store tonight - I went home and sulked.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
It begins - 101@0.4%
Okay. Today I starting working on a rough plan for how to achieve my 101 goals and there's going to be a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to get through all this. My reading and writing goals will particularly be a challenge. According to my spreadsheet I'm currently 0.4% of the way done, mostly because I already know two of the seven song set I'd like to have memorized for piano.
Yes he made a spreadsheet to monitor the percent complete at all times. Yes he is aware this makes him a dork. I'm betting he can't clear 75%.
But hey, updating my blog for the week - that's another little tick.
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
Or as Arnold would say: "Go! Get to da choppa!"
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
101 in 1001
So Lady Rose and I are doing the 101 in 1001 thing. If you haven't heard of it look it up. In any case, here are some goals I am going to try to achieve in the next 1001 days. I'll update as appropriate.
1. read three Shakespeare plays that I haven’t read or seen before
2. fix the furnace humidifier and maintain the filter
3. complete edits on my novel
4. comment in writing to the manager on good retail service three times
5. floss every day for three months
6. weigh 235 pounds
7. learn and memorize a seven song piano set
8. go to bed and get up at the same time every day for a month
9. paint / stain the deck
10. pay twenty five cents from allowance for each plastic bag I accept and donate the proceeds to an environmental organization
11. go on five new hikes
12. make a new friend
13. get a shower timer
14. finish discussing my novel with Dad
15. take at most five-minute showers for one month
16. clear all twenty-seven books from by “to read” shelf before adding any more
17. have meals with five interesting people I’ve never dined with before
18. go to a hockey game
19. use transit for a non-work trip three times
20. get to work on time using transit three times
21. go to an improv night
22. write a first draft of a new novel
23. respond to all personal emails within 24 hours for three months
24. create a house-number feature for the front yard
25. go for lunch with a coworker, once a month for six months
26. paint three paintings
27. spend a day in three
28. discuss plays with Dad, once per reading or production he attends
29. pick up garbage in my community or public parks five times
30. find out my blood type
31. memorize five stanzas from the Tao Te Ching that speak to me
32. go to a modern dance show
33. go to the Winnipeg Fringe
34. build shoe-shelves in front entryway
35. email three out-of-town friends at least once per quarter for a year
36. leave no clothes on the floor for a month
37. read a philosophy book
38. send birthday cards to twelve extended family members that live in other cities
39. go to a community association meeting
40. join a writing group
41. talk with Dad about his poetry writing
42. fix lip at top of basement stairs
43. walk to the video store three times
44. weigh 220 pounds
45. write
46. go to a poetry slam
47. put up a drying line
48. meditate for 30 minutes twice a week for three months
49. get a good headshot taken
50. swim in a naturally occurring body of water
51. read three Folio Society books
52. update my blog weekly
53. go to a baseball game
54. update my facebook weekly
55. visit five art galleries in
56. walk to the grocery store three times
57. go to
58. install railing on front steps
59. join a federal political party
60. go to a riding association meeting
61. find three new bands that I like
62. put in a better mailbox
63. score three goals in a soccer season
64. go to the orchestra
65. play with the cats at least ten minutes a day for a month
66. direct a play
67. go to the Edmonton Fringe
68. go for dinner with my parents once per month for six months
69. write two one-act plays
70. set up home office space in basement
71. read a book by Dickens
72. join a theatre group
73. sort out comics
74. make lamps out of three unusual things
75. work out three times a week for three months
76. clean my desk at work by end of day Friday every week for 10 weeks
77. build storage shelves in garage
78. go to the opera
79. write a new full length play
80. watch the entire Xena: Warrior Princess series
81. phone my sister three times with no occasion
82. learn basic French
83. read “How to Fix Everything”
84. take three steps to make the house more energy or water efficient
85. write a new piece for piano
86. go without speaking for 48 hours
87. watch the Godfather parts I and II
88. go berry picking
89. write another new full length play
90. install a rain barrel
91. read FFWD every week for three months
92. attend a rally in support of a cause
93. coordinate gaming events at least once a month for a year
94. drink 5 cups of water or tea every day for a month
95. weigh 210 pounds
96. write a review of something once a month for six months
97. learn to take pictures in low light
98. write three short stories
99. go to
100. write three essays
101. take three photos nice enough to frame and hang in my office at work
I'm not sure I have much more to say on this at the moment. I'm still working on an excel spreadsheet to track my percent complete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)