STAC Improv and Experiencing Emotions

Yesterday in STAC, we worked on more improv. I feel like I was very close to experiencing emotion in acting, but I couldn't quite do it.

When Luke gave us all of the stereotypical archetypes for characters, such as the ticking time bomb, annoying teenager, fun elderly, and others, I couldn't find a good match. I went through all the people in my head that I knew, and none of them could evoke strong emotions from me.

For the ticking time bomb, I tried to think about my mom, because she has a habit of explosive anger. But it didn't make me scared, because my mom's anger doesn't scare me. It evokes my pity more than anything. Sometimes I say things that press her buttons because I know it will make her mad. Obviously, that wasn't going to make me scared.

For the annoying teenager, I tried to imagine one of my irritating roommates from camp who has made me angry on multiple occasions, but it didn't work. Maybe I haven't talked to her enough in recent times, but conjuring up my memory of her didn't make me upset. Actually, I felt like I was trying to conjure up how upset I felt when I conjured up memories of her in the past. This indirect process was not going to make me upset either.

Luke tried to make me scared by threatening to scold me, but that didn't work either. At first I felt a little scared when he proposed the idea, but when I went into the room, he just stared at me, and that made me laugh. Yeah, that wasn't working either.

I sat down, and I carefully watched all of the other scenes people did in order to feel emotion. When I saw everyone else's fiery emotions, I started to feel emotions as well. Especially after I saw Courtney's screaming, I felt this intense desire to scream at someone, and I knew that I was feeling the emotions.

Unfortunately, I only got one try at the improv. That's one thing that disappoints me about improv. As soon as I sit down, I see what I did wrong and I want to try again, but I often have to wait another two weeks. By then, I forget the progress that I've made and I start from zero. I wish I could have the chance to improvise two or three times a period, after watching other people, in order to get better.

Once class ended, I thought about my inability to conjure up an image that made me upset. I realized how mellow my life was. I don't think I've gotten into a fight with someone in...months. I actually can't remember the last time I had a serious fight with anyone. Not my brother, not my parents, nobody. See, when people make me upset, I generally AVOID them. I keep them out of my life. I don't like people who waste my time and my emotions. Apparently I've been so successful at doing this that I cannot think of any person that makes me upset at the thought. The only thing that makes me upset at the thought is my fear of the future. Heck, I don't even fear death anymore. It's ridiculous.

I'm sure it would be unwise to search out unpleasant people in order to make it easier to call upon my negative emotions. On the other hand, I might be able to call upon other people's emotions. I've realized in my life that I am quite good at taking on the emotions that I see other people feel. If someone's crying, I want to cry. If someone's angry, I want to yell. Like I said earlier, seeing Courtney upset invoked more emotion in me than I could invoke on my own. People say I'm good at understanding others. I think this is a tool I can use to my advantage in order to become in touch with my stronger emotions.

Perhaps one method I should try is to imagine how OTHER people would react to certain archetypes and try to use those emotions. For example, I do not have an intense fear of Luke's anger (sorry), but many other people do. I could imagine myself as someone else, imaging the other improviser is Luke, and feel the fear that way. It's worth a shot.

I wish our STAC improv scenes were shorter so we can get more practice. I acknowledge that it's important to work with people one-on-one, but I feel like we aren't getting enough practice. Also, it's can be tough to watch scenes drag on for 10-15 minutes, but maybe I'm just being impatient. There are a lot of people in STAC, and it takes time to work through everyone. I acknowledge that too.

I feel like if we get enough practice, we can do some long form. I've been wanting to do long form improv in STAC for YEARS. The great thing about long form is that people can work off of each others ideas. Scenes expand upon one another, and the performance is cohesive. This form is also more fun to watch than intricate scene work. However, it is geared mainly for comedy. Our improv scenes have mostly been dramatic. This is good preparation for film acting I'm sure.

The benefit of working on long form improv and other kinds of comedic improv is that these kinds of improv are easily performance ready. We could improv for STAC night and other events as well. Also, comedic improv is a lot of fun. I've been doing it for years, and it saddens me that my time to do improv is condensed to a 7 week time period during the summer (3 and a half weeks this year, because I'm going to Europe).

Scholarly Review: Reflections on Parker J. Palmer and Eric Hoffer

I finished the books Luke gave me a week or two ago, but I haven't made a blog post about them until now. It feels a bit late, and much of the information is already falling out of my head, but I promised myself I would write a blog post, and I try my best to keep my word.

Let Your Life Speak by Parker J. Palmer

I know why Luke wanted me to read this. The book is a collection of essays in which Palmer talks about his struggles in finding what he wants to do with his life. He went through a number of jobs, and even at 40, he was unaware of his vocation. This was a great comfort to me, because if a man in his 40s still hasn't figured out his vocation, it's ok if I don't know at 16.

Chapter 1: Listening to Life

One interesting thing that Palmer notes is that "We listen to guidance everywhere but within." Many people do not trust their own instincts and can only act when they are told what they should do. I suppose much of schooling trains us in this way. You see this often in educational situations. The example Parker uses is how people act when they go on a retreat. Often, they will take copious amounts of notes on what the leader says, but rarely do they take notes on what they themselves say. If the purpose of a retreat is to learn about how to make your life better, shouldn't you ask yourself what you are doing? The words of others can be helpful, but words alone do not teach.

Chapter 2: Now I Become Myself

Palmer takes us on a journey through his various occupations. Many times, he chose jobs because he thought he "ought" to do them, based on his abilities and his belief that he must contribute in a certain way to society. This related strongly to my own life. I felt like I "ought" to do music because I was good at it, and it was my responsibility to become a musician for all of the confused teenagers who needed music that understood them, so they felt more normal. 

He talks about "birthright gifts." These are the talents we had when we were born, without the oughts. Though the oughts can give us clues into are birthright gifts, often they mislead us into ignoring our inner voice. We all have a certain nature, and we know when that nature is being denied. Sooner or later, we reach a point where we cannot live in a lie and we must break free. Often this happens in the form of quitting, getting fired, or other forms of failures. Sometimes, it ends with us finally fighting for what is right. 

He calls this the "Rosa Parks Decision." When Rosa Parks was asked why she sat down in the white section of the bus on December 1, 1995, she replied, "I sat down because I was tired." She did not intend to begin a movement. She was tired of having to follow the rules, of denying her own freedoms because of the laws that constrained her.

Chapter 3: When the Way Closes

In this chapter, Palmer talks about how he's often been mislead by his belief that he "should" do something, and that his failure to accomplish things is due to a lack of effort. It is a common American belief that if a person works hard enough, they can accomplish anything. This is not true. Obstacles to achievement are not just on the outside, they are also inside. We all have innate limits. That's simply the way we are built. When we ignore our limits, we hurt ourselves, and we hurt the people around us.

This paragraph made a strong impression on me.

"When I give something I do not possess, I give a false and dangerous gift, a gift that looks like love but is, in reality, loveless - a gift given more from my need to prove myself than from the other's need to be cared for. That kind of giving is not only loveless but faithless, based on the arrogant and mistaken notion that God has no way of channeling love to the other except through me. Yes, we are created in and for community, to be there, in love, for one another. But community cuts both ways: when we reach the limits of our own capacity to love, community means trusting that someone else will be available to the person in need....Burnout is a state of emptiness, to be sure, but it does not result from giving all I have: it merely reveals the nothingness from which I was trying to give in the first place...When the gift I give to the other is integral to my own nature, when it comes from a place of organic reality within me, it will renew itself - and me - even as I give it away. Only when I give something that does not grow within me do I deplete myself and harm the other as well, for only harm can come from a gift that is forced, inorganic, unreal."

In summary, we cannot care for something more than we do, or else we burn ourselves out and hurt others with our insincerity. Often in my life, I try to be nice to other people. I feel like I must care for them because they need someone to care. That's a big problem of mine, misplaced compassion. I need to learn to let people go so they can find better compassion somewhere else.

In another part of the chapter, Palmer talks about his conversation with an older woman in a Quaker institution named Ruth. He is in his 40s at this point, and he is still unsure of what his vocation should be. This is what she tells him.

"I'm a birthright Friend, and in sixty-plus years of living, way has never opened in front of me...But a lot of way has closed behind me, and that's had the same guiding effect."

The doors that close behind us are a great guide to what lies ahead. When a door closes, you know that is not your purpose, and that means you can try other things. It eliminates faulty options on the list of opportunities. That's what our life is, crossing off the wrong so we can find the right.

At one point when Palmer was recommended for a leadership position in a college, he gathered his friends into a clearness committee in order to evaluate whether he should take the job or not. In a clearness committee, one person asks for help on how to respond to a concern or a dilemma. What makes it special is that the members are only allowed to ask questions. They cannot offer advice, nor amateur psychoanalysis. Often, I feel like when people offer advice, they are simply trying to prove their own superiority. They want to know they are right, and they want you to become reliant on them. That's why this form of therapy greatly appealed to me. A person cannot impose their beliefs by asking questions. Even better, a person realizes the solution themselves, which has a more profound impact on them than the words of outside advice. I would love to try this.

Chapter 4: All the Way Down

Palmer went through two depressions in his life, and in this chapter, he talks about his experiences. I myself have gone through depression, and I know that it is a very difficult thing to explain to someone who has not experienced it. I commend Palmer for even trying to describe it.

This essay taught me more about helping others with depression as opposed to depression itself. However, the essay is probably the most insightful piece of writing on how to help others with depression that I've ever read. I've had friends who suffered through depression, and I did some research on depression in order to find ways of helping them. It didn't help very much.

A woman who suffered from depression for most of her adult life asked Palmer, "Why do some people kill themselves while others get well?"

He only had one answer. "I don't know."

At first he believed that this statement was too negative, and it would only serve to further hurt her spirits. In reality, that answer gave her depression justification. Before, she believed that her inability to get better was her own fault. But if it's unclear how people are cured from depression, then it's probably not due to any personal weakness of hers.

Palmer came to understand two lessons. The first is that one must always tell the truth to a depressed person. When a person is depressed, they can always tell when people are lying to make them feel better. This makes them feel even more isolated and misunderstood. They want honesty, even if it hurts, because honesty is better than living a lie. Based off of the above chapters, it's pretty clear that belief in wistful lies are what lead to depression in the first place.

The second is that we cannot look for quick fixes to depression. Institutions wish to simplify the issue of depression because they don't want to make the effort to deal with it completely. Depression isn't just finding more friends, or curing money issues, or finding God (if you're religious).

He then goes through all of the ways his friends tried to help him but failed. Many of the statements people make to those who are depressed often serve to make them feel worse. "It's a beautiful day outside. Why don't you go out? It will make you feel better."

A person who is depressed cannot voluntarily change the way they feel. They know they should be happy in their head, but they cannot feel happy in their heart. A statement like the one above simply reminds them that the way they feel is wrong, and that makes them feel ashamed.

"You're such a good person. Think about all of the great things you have done, and surely you will feel better."

The depressed person does not view themselves as a good person. By saying insincerely that you believe they are a good person, they think that they have "tricked" you into thinking that way. That causes further separation, because the depressed person now thinks you don't see their true self.

"I know exactly how you feel..."

When I read this sentence in the book, I literally made a fist and I wanted to punch something. That statement is probably one of the worst things you can ever say to someone. No one can ever know exactly how another person feels. We don't have the same context. To say that you know how they feel is almost patronizing. The depressed person knows that no one fully understands what they are feeling. They know they are being lied to for the sake of comfort.

People feel the need to offer their help in this way because they do not want to believe they are powerless and useless in the face of their friend's adversity. When we sit and watch a friend with depression, we feel their hopelessness, and that makes us scared. That's why we feel the need to impose our good will, not for their benefit, but for our own. 

The best way to help a person who's depressed is to be there. Palmer had a friend who came to his house every afternoon and massaged his feet. He never offered advice. Instead he said things like "I can sense your struggle today" or "It feels like you are getting stronger." People who are depressed want to be understood, not consoled. They don't want others to feel their situation, they want others to feel their feelings. They want to know their feelings are ok, not something that needs to be "fixed" quickly.

Chapter 5: Leading from Within

This chapter talked about how a person needs to be stable on the inside in order to be a leader. Essentially, they need to figure out their own problems, or else they abuse their authority in order to create coping mechanisms. 

I don't have much to say about this chapter, but it did make me think about Abraham Lincoln. When I saw the film Lincoln, I could see that Lincoln was a fearless man. He was not held back by the social constructs that give people too much paranoia to act. He didn't feel the need to impress people, or to be accepted. He had risen above these feelings. This is why he was such an effective leader. I think in my life, I'm getting closer to this point. I could feel the way Lincoln saw life, and I could imagine doing the same myself in the future. When I saw that movie, I understood what fearlessness felt like for the first time. Before then, it seemed inconceivable to me.

Eric Hoffer: An American Odyssey by Calvin Tomkins

This book talks more about Hoffer's life story than his ideals. He was raised in New York in a German family. When he grew up, he spent his life taking menial jobs throughout the west coast. He never got married, and he only settled down when he befriended a woman by the name of Lili Osbourne. I guess in that way, he's sort of like an American buddha. Hoffer profoundly loved the average American worker. He believed deeply in the ingenuity of the average American, and he had a distaste for European-esque intellectuals, although he never had a strong dislike toward anybody. 

Throughout his life, he wrote a number of aphorisms. These are a few of my favorites.

• When we begin to think that most people are no better than we, the world seems full of people who are fairly unpleasant
• In human affairs every solution serves only to sharpen the problem, to show us more clearly what we are up against. There are no final solutions.
• When trying to determine the role Christianity played in the rise of the modern Occident, it is necessary to remember that is was a weakening of the Christian faith that marked the birth of our present civilization

I feel like nowadays, people do not have faith in human ingenuity. They pity the poor, they pity those who live in Africa, they pity those who do not have their privileges. What they fail to realize is that survival is a human instinct. Even if people don't have the same privileges as the upper middle class, they can often figure out a way to manage, and we should commend them for that, not pity them. 

I wish to read Eric Hoffer's book The True Believer soon. In this book (which is his most famous book), he explains why people believe so deeply in religions like Christianity and Islam, or movements like Nazism, Mussolini fascism, and the KKK. I'm very curious to see how an author can compare Christianity to the KKK and survive to write another book.

Project: The Story of a Relationship and My Infatuation with Homosexuality

The Idea

For someone who is often very open about what she does, I think it was noticeable this week when I chose worked on my film clandestinely. A number of you were quite confused when you saw Matt dressed as a psychologist, flipping through pictures of nearly nude men and women.

I decided not to write about my project because I somehow felt like if I explained it, I wouldn't be able to do it. The movie covered a number of serious topics. I feared if people knew what I was doing, they would shame me and tell me no. That is why I have waited until now.

I will start from the beginning.

I have a friend who is a very conservative Catholic. He is basically a self-made theologian. Though I generally disregard those who believe in religious dogma, he made an impression on me by having the ability to logically explain the conservative point of view. Often we do not agree, but he respects my opinions and I respect his.

One day this friend of mine engaged me in a debate about homosexuality. He claims that homosexuals are diseased people suffering from a pathological disorder. He believes this "disorder" can be cured with proper psychological treatment, and that such a cure would benefit the homosexual. Of course I thought this was preposterous, but instead of writing him off, I wanted to hear how he could come to such a conclusion. He had read a book by the Dutch psychiatrist G. J. M. van den Aardweg, explaining the process of how this psychiatrist cured homosexuality in his patients.

This friend of mine is an incredibly good debater, and though I tried my best to refute his points, I could not. Still, I knew my belief was right and his was wrong. Most people would give up, saying that it's not worth arguing with a crazy person. But not me. I love to debate. I love to win. I wasn't done yet.

Last week I had to look up logical fallacies in my English class. I discovered that my friend's argument suffered from an appeal to authority, and I told him right away. He responded, "At least I have evidence. You haven't given me any factual information."

He had valid point. I couldn't argue my point because I didn't have enough information. "Fine," I said. "I will do my research, and then we shall resume this debate."

I pulled out my kindle and searched "homosexuality." A majority of the books had titles like "A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality" or "Leaving Homosexuality: A Practical Guide for Men and Women Looking for a Way Out." This mildly disgusted me, although I probably would have gotten better results if I searched the word "gay." Magically though, I came upon an excellent book on the subject, Understanding Homosexuality: The Pride and the Prejudice by Roger E. Biery. This amazing book explained all of the logical ways in which my friend was wrong. I read it in between classes, on car rides, and late at night. I was infatuated with it.

I returned to my friend and refuted a number of his points, and I'm pretty sure I gained the upper hand. We debated some more until he gave up on rhetoric and decided he would send me the book he read, which will apparently "blow me away." This book is in Spanish and my friend is painstakingly translating parts of it for me to read. He has yet to send it to me. I am waiting.

Now that you have context, I can talk about how I ended up making the movie that I made. On Monday, Luke sent us this assignment.

"You are to tell the story of a couple, from first meeting to break-up, in a series of shots overlaid with music. "

I had two ideas. One involved the story of a girl who falls in love with a boy in a library, but he pays more attention to his books than her. She tries to get his attention, which throws him into a fit of rage, and he breaks up with her.

The other was to make a story about a lesbian insecure about her sexuality who falls in love with a girl. She brings the girl to meet her family, but they don't approve and they send her into reparative therapy, changing her as a human being.

The second idea had a stronger pull on me, but I wasn't sure if it would be appropriate for me to make a movie about lesbians. I felt like I had no authority on the subject because I am not gay. After some pondering, I realized that it would be judgmental for me NOT to make a story about a gay couple. Why does every love story have to be straight? This is a standard perpetuated by our society. It is a social construct. Gay people make movies about straight love. Why can't straight people make movies about gay love? My book defines homosexuality as "the consistent, predominant or exclusive, emotional and erotic attraction to persons of the same gender." There are only two differences between gay and straight couples. The first is that they cannot have children. The second is that they have to deal with prejudice. There are no other differences.

I may not know what is it like to be judged for being gay, but I have been judged, and I did my research on sexuality, so I figured I had sufficient authority on the subject to attempt a film.

Writing

These are my notes on the plot

This is what the notes say. I named the first girl "Insecure" because she is insecure. The other girl is labeled as "Strong" because she is confident.

"An insecure girl walks through hallways seeing women. She is confused and visibly unsettled.

She sits in a secluded area reading books on sexuality. A friendly girl approaches her. They talk, look at each other. Strong girl puts her hand on insecure girl's hand. They smile.

They meet in a number of locations secretly. Insecure girl is somewhat reluctant. Strong girl holds her.

Insecure girl does more research, harsh news paper headlines.

Insecure introduces Strong to suspicious parents. They eat dinner. Parents see them holding hangs. Father storms out. Mother cries

Insecure is taken to therapist. She has episodes of mild self-harm.

Two girls are in the same place as the beginning. Strong goes up to insecure. She looks goth, depressed. Insecure shoves Strong and walks away, dropping book. Strong picks it up. She cries."

Storyboarding

I immediately drew out a storyboard. The movie was so vivid in my mind I was able to convert it to storyboard format very easily. The plot did end up changing a good amount in the drafting process. (Note: many of the storyboards are marked up because I checked them off as I went)

I drew out the first scene but crossed it out because it seemed unnecessary.

I also cut out the section where she reads newspapers because it would be difficult to acquire a newspaper with a desired title, and it seemed unnecessary anyway.

This is the draft of when they meet.

I later cut a number of the shots.

For their love montage, I honestly did not plan much. I figured I could accomplish it spontaneously.

This was the plan for dinner with the parents.

The therapy montage was also not as fleshed out. At the time I had trouble thinking of examples of therapy. I knew that electrocution was used, so I drew that. I ended up removing it, because I thought it would be too violent, and it would distract from the film.

This was the break up.

Filming

I knew immediately I wanted Emily in my film as the insecure girl. Not because I think she's insecure. I thought she had the sensitivity needed for the role. Also, she's a beautiful girl and she should be in more films. As for the other girl, I saw Danielle walking through the hallway and I thought she would be great for the role of a strong lesbian. Again, not because I think she's a lesbian.

Meet up/Break up

The first day, we filmed the meet up and the break up, since many of them contained the same shots. I made a chart to parallel the two scenes.

I cut out a few shots, but I was generally consistent to the storyboard.

In a number of ways, the filming went better than I expected. I told Danielle she had to try and get Danielle's attention, and I wasn't expecting her to try this.

The actors did a good job changing so quickly between drastic emotions. I'm sure was a difficult task.

Love Montage

I finished filming the meet up/break up quicker than I expected, so I ended up filming the montage on the same day. We all thought on our feet, brainstorming ways couples have fun together. Emily and Danielle had a snowball fight, played hide and seek, spun in a circle, and made a snowman.

Filming the spinning was particularly fun. I handed the camera to each of the girls and they filmed themselves spinning in a circle. It looked ridiculous on the outside, but great on film.

The snow man segment was cut, but everything else was saved.

Therapy

For this section I did some extra research, especially since I knew that I couldn't use electrocution therapy in my film. I found two kinds of therapy that I could depict non-verbally.

The first was Behavioral Modification. This involves showing pictures of men and women, and punishing the patient when they react in an "undesired way."

The second was Reparative Therapy. The patient is shown pictures of "masculine" or "feminine" things, in hopes that they will begin to act more like their gender.

In the end, I decided that the therapist would impose his authority by whacking Emily's hand with a ruler. This seemed sufficiently painful without being overly violent.

I had Luke print out the images I wanted to use because my home printer has terrible quality. Matt was my therapist.

Matt certainly had a way with words. He said many terrifying things to Emily as he went through the pictures. We ended up making her cry by the end. I view that as a success.

Meeting the Parents

I made some extra notes for how I would film this, because I didn't want to waste time. Emily and John had to get back to the school for music.

I ended up disregarding most of these notes, because the first storyboard I made had planned the scene enough so I could improvise in between.

John and Kat were Emily's parents. They did an excellent job. 

Editing

Once I got all the footage, I worked swiftly on editing. The song I picked for is You Showed Me by The Turtles. This song sticks out to me because it sounds so sad, even though it's a positive song.

During editing I learned something important. The more raw footage you have, the more difficult editing becomes. In the scenes that I plotted out shot by shot, editing was a simple task. However, the scenes I let the camera run on left me a lot of work for later. The meet up and break up took me a period or two to edit. The therapy segment took me up until now.

Especially for the therapy segment, editing was more difficult than I thought. Although I had shot most of the movie, I crafted that scene, if that makes any sense.

There are a few continuity errors, and there were people in the background of some scenes. Hopefully, these aren't very noticeable.

The Movie

Here it is.

Bibliography

Biery, Roger E. Understanding Homosexuality: The Pride and the Prejudice. Austin: Edward-William, 2010. Print.

The Most Genuine Thing is the Thing Right in Front of You

One interesting phenomena that I've noticed since I abandoned music is that I actually enjoy listening to music more now that I don't feel the need to make any of it. I've felt less embarrassed about what I listen to, less keen to keep up a standard of good taste, so I only listen to music I like. Ironically, I think this has broadened and improved my taste in music.

Isn't it ironic how you finally get what you want the moment you stop trying to get it?

I think it snapped in my mind when I read The Untethered Soul. Most of our disappointment comes from when we set standards for what we believe the world should be like, and the world fails our expectations. It looked extensively into the concept of loneliness. If you give yourself the standard that everyone should like you, then your brain is overworking itself to accomplish this impossible task. When you fail, you blame yourself, instead of understanding the fundamental truth. Why must everyone like you? Because you fear what people can do to you if they don't like you. Because you fear that people may secretly dislike you and they're not telling you.

I had that fear for a number of years, until eventually it stopped. I no longer care deeply about what others think of me, be it my personality or my appearance. When I stopped caring, something strange happened - I began to love myself. I love my looks, I love my personality. It may sound conceited, but I don't believe it is. It's fine for me to love myself as long and I don't view myself as superior. I think you guys are excellent as well.

When I began to like myself, I found that others liked me as well. I guess people are attracted to confident personalities. Perhaps they are searching for that confidence in themselves, or confident people are simply more fun to be around. It's probably a combination of the two.

Everyone is chasing after what they believe will make them happy, but in truth, everyone has exactly what they need right in front of them. They just need to see it.

So-called "hipsters" are obsessed with genuineness. The reason that people are bothered so much by hipsters is because they are so clearly hollow on the inside, and in order to compensate, they follow in fashion trends. They wear vintage clothing because it gives them a sense of heritage. They listen to obscure bands because it makes them feel unique. They go to concerts because they want to be in groups where events are happening. They obsess over past time periods such as the 60s because they believe those times were better than now. That's not necessarily true.

My mom is a musicologist, and she's looked deeply into the current trends of Hungarian folk music. When the Soviet Union turned Hungary into a communist state, the folk music tradition was abruptly halted. The culture wasn't taught to children, and once the country re-emerged, these children didn't know how to continue the tradition. They felt as if they didn't have the authority to tarnish the "pure" folk music that their ancestors once knew. Many of them believe that the only people who have this authority are the Gypsies. On the other hand, they don't view the Gypsies as real Hungarians.

What these people don't realize is that the music was never pure. Before the days of records, nothing was pure. Everything was fluid. There was no need to follow an ideal standard because no such standard existed.

Why are people so obsessed with the ideal of genuineness?

I feel like this is because people examine those who have become genuine through their life experiences, and they want to immediately to achieve the wisdom these people have acquired, without putting in the effort. People look at the Beatles and think "I want to be just like them." They try to act like the Beatles. But the Beatles didn't try to be The Beatles. The Beatles didn't exist until they existed, and before then, there was no standard. They went into uncharted territory and left their flags. Now, people try to follow the flags when the flags are nothing more than suggestions.

People live now just as they always did. The only difference is we have more technology and less murder.

We shouldn't raise the past to more than what it was, and we shouldn't diminish the present to less than what it is.

Failed Experiments

Right now I am currently in the process of revising my piece, taking in Alex's suggestions. Another important criticism he gave me that I forgot to mention in my last blog post was my often incorrect use of complex vocabulary words.

Reflecting upon this comment, I wondered why I felt this need to use outrageous vocabulary. Was I trying to prove some sort of intellectual superiority? Or was I simply trying to see if I could use fancy vocabulary words for the fun of it? I realized, the answer was likely both. I view my work as an experiment. I see words in my readings, or in the thesaurus, and I want to use them. The problem is, I often don't know how.

I had two problems with incorrect diction. The first was a problem were I simply used a word incorrectly. For example, in one of my sentences I said

I acquired a collection of anachronistic facts which I could barely comprehend; the capital, the currency, the anthem.

This sentence is slightly revised so the grammar isn't great anyway. But more importantly, the word anachronistic was used inaccurately. I intended for the word to mean random, but anachronistic actually means out of sequence. So the above sentence is essentially nonsense.

The other problem I had was I would often use strong vocabulary words to describe something I didn't actually feel very passionately about. For example,

It was what he told me next that pierced my heart in a way that was irrevocable, and changed my outlook in a way that was irreversible.

At first when I wrote this sentence, I thought "wow that's so cool!" But here's pretty much what I meant to say.

It was what he told me next that surprised me, and opened me up to a different way of thinking.

Another example. I wrote this.

He made the desperately potent statement that would echo in my mind for months.

This is what I meant to say.

His sad statement left a strong impression on me.

Not quite so intense. But also, not nearly as ridiculous.

Although at first I felt embarrassed by my blatant writing errors, but then I felt better knowing that I least tried to use mature writing. I did an experiment, and it failed. Now I know for the future, and I'm happy for that. I'm going to attempt rewriting my sentences in a way that effectively combines metaphor and blatant feelings. Hopefully, this experiment will be more successful than the last one.

Workshop: Writing 2

I know the writing workshop was over a week ago, but I figure it would be good to respond to it anyhow.

I don't know why I was afraid of criticism. When people came to review my pieces, I found that I actually came to crave criticism. I wanted as much criticism as possible, so I could know everything was wrong. I was flattered by the compliments, but in the back of my head I was screaming "Tell me what's wrong!"

When Alex gave his critiques, I came to a strange sort of realization.

Although I had gone in believing that I wrote a piece of creative non-fiction, I began to feel like I had instead created some sort of psychological profile of myself. My writing was an explanation of my feelings and my inner conflicts. It was so honest, I don't feel particularly comfortable talking about it openly, so I'm sorry if this blog post is super vague.

Now, it's obvious my art is much about myself. All art is autobiographical. Especially creative non-fiction, which is quite literally, autobiographical art.

The thing is, when I received critique for my writing, I felt like I was receiving some sort of therapy. It's hard to describe. Somehow, the criticisms that Alex offered for my writing were indirectly words of advice for how I should handle my dilemmas.

For example, he said that I needed to keep my feelings consistant throughout the story. In my piece, I had a dichotomy between pitying and revering the people I interacted with. I wanted to believe that I had respected my friends throughout my piece. In truth, I had pitied them. It was clearly evident in my writing, but I did not realize it, because I never admitted it to myself. I can lie, but my writing can't. This new perspective not only changed my outlook on my writing, but also it changed my outlook on my life and my choices. Perhaps I have been too subjective towards myself, and that clouds my judgment.

An important aspect of creative non-fiction is to recognize that your story took place in the past, and in that past, you had different feelings than you do now. You were likely more foolish then. This makes you reluctant to be honest in your writing, because you don't want to admit that you were once immature, or wrong.

What can help you cope with your past humiliations is to realize that you are a different person now. You are more knowledgable than you were then. If you admit that, you can move on.

I hope to add a reflection to my piece in order to cope with these feelings. Even if I don't end up including it, I will feel a lot better know that I was honest to my feelings at the time and honest to my feelings now.

And maybe if I can develop a mature view on the situation, I will be able to decipher it more effectively and fix some of my issues.

Workshop: Writing 1

I think it's safe to assume that after taking a workshop I must blog about it. I think this is very safe to assume because I am taking a writing workshop.

Before the workshop, Luke sent us a radio play in which an English teacher talked about how she made her students write pieces to "reveal the darkest depths of your soul." This gave me the preconception that we were all going to share our pieces and cry together in some emotionally intense, falsified bonding experience. Thankfully, this did not actually happen. The workshop was more along the lines of what would be expected.

During the workshop, we mainly focused on the discussion of writing pieces and the topic of creative non-fiction. Alex Tunney passed around a writing piece he created about his childhood snacking habits, which he told us to mark up and note upon. I read though it and at first, I wasn't sure if this was an invitation to critique the piece. Once Alex clarified that it was, I took it upon myself to mark it up the way I generally critique my own writing: intently and objectively.

I didn't feel I was carrying myself away, but there was a clear difference between the Picasso-like art piece I had created upon my paper and the sparse notes upon everyone else's. I think many of us were shy to critique, because we did not feel as if we had the authority to correct our teacher, especially on our first day meeting him. I considered this, and came to the conclusion that whatever critique I could offer, as long as it was proactive, could not be any worse than what Alex has received as an English major in college.

One important thing that I've learned about education is that in order to fully take advantage of a good teacher, you must actively engage with them. Therefore, I wasn't afraid to speak up and participate. I also figured that if I could help start a discussion or two, it would pave a way for everyone else to participate. It's always difficult to be the first person to speak, but lately I've been finding that I play that role frequently. Some people tell me I "wear the pants." As long as they're feminine pants I'm alright with that.

So after reading through Alex's piece, he moderated a discussion about it both as a teacher and as the writer of the piece. We began with compliments, because those are always the easiest to warm the waters with. I liked a number of the metaphors he used, and as a whole, I thought it he had created a decent piece of writing.

Soon though, the discussion moved into the realm of critique. I think many fear critiquing others because they can see the same critiques being used upon themselves. Although many acknowledge that critique is helpful, I think it takes a while for a person to accept critiques without being personally hurt, especially with something as blatant and vulnerable as writing. I admit, I am afraid of others critiquing my art, but I am willing to face this fear because I know it is an irrational one that I ought to overcome if I am to progress.

Once the discussion started flowing, everyone was engaged. A number of people made some good points about literary devices and grammar. We didn't have much to say about the theme of the piece or it's overall cohesiveness, although it seemed like Alex was attempting to aim the discussion in that direction. It was difficult for me to discuss the purpose because I couldn't quite think of one worthy of putting into words. To me, the story seemed like an entertaining tale about Alex's eating habits developing overtime. I didn't see anything wrong with having that just as it was.

At the end of the workshop we all received books of creative non-fiction to read. I happened to end up with the one called How to Be Inappropriate by Daniel Nester, featuring a lovely cover of a man sticking his thumb out of his fly in order to make it look like a penis.

I hear there's an interesting story about feet licking

In addition to reading from our books, we have to send our pieces to each other for critique. Reading Alex's writing piece gave me comfort in sharing mine, but I am nervous for the next workshop where we share our critiques. Although I thought my piece was generally well written and coherent, I didn't get as much time to revise it as I would've liked, and I also had a lot of trouble finding a clear purpose within it. I don't know how an audience will interpret it. Also, I feel vaguely embarrassed by it, but I'm not quite sure why because it doesn't include anything about me that's particularly embarrassing.

In addition, I hope that I don't end up writing to harshly upon other people's pieces. I won't let that stop me, because often my edits have been able to help people. I went through 2 drafts of my brother's college essay and he made it into RIT early decision, so I'm probably doing something right.

At any rate, I'm excited for the next workshop, and I'm glad that we're building an artistic community.