On waiting

It seems rather paradoxical, if not downright wrong, to write about waiting. We all wait–for the bathroom, for food, in line, on the phone, in the doctor’s office, at the grocery store, at the movie theater. We get in line and wait. I guess that’s because we can’t all be first. I have waited for the last plane, the last metro, the last bus. Yesterday I spent time waiting to board several planes, then waited to take off, then waited for my cup of soda, then we all waited to land, and then, of course, we all waited to get off the plane that we had all waited to get on. I waited in line at Starbucks for my coffee. I waited for a cook to make me a hamburger (but a real hamburger–not a fast food hamburger). I had to wait to go to the bathroom. I waited to get my suitcase after I spent the day waiting for everything else. But I am no good at waiting. In fact, I hate waiting for someone else to do their job. Today, I waited for my lunch. I was in good company, but it took forty-five minutes for my lunch to come out (it was worth it–why am I complaining?) Waiting seems to be one of those things that is an inherent part of the human condition: you want something; you have to wait for it. I remember as a small child I saved box tops, filled out the little cardboard form, taped a quarter to it, and mailed it in so I could get some prize that was being advertised on the back of the cereal box. I waited, and I waited, and I waited, and then it finally came when I had almost forgotten that I was waiting for something. Then, once I had the thing–whatever it was–I didn’t think it was a cool as I imagined it would be, and it wasn’t. But I had waited an eternity to get it. I am currently waiting for the bread machine to finish baking some bread. Yet, I hate to wait and am impatient. I get annoyed easily when the person in front of me at the grocery story decides to write a check–I have to wait. Couldn’t they just swipe a credit card? I take a book to the doctor’s office because I know I’ll have to wait—actual planning and scheduling is not a part of any medical curriculum anywhere. Waiting in traffic has got to be a special punishment dreamed up by Dante, but it leaked out of Hell and into the world. What did I ever do to deserve such a punishment as waiting?

On "A Midsummer Night’s Dream" @ Baylor

If one were to write the perfect play that evokes the Greek roots of theater, that focuses on unrequited (and requited) love, that finally becomes a shambles of brilliant comic absurdity, one might write Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Baylor University, under the apt direction of Steven Pounders, is currently producing WS’s comedy/romance/homage at its Mabee theater, but never mind because the run is sold out. There are standing-room-only if you are so inclined. If you were, however, to write such a play it would have to employ an unbelievable plot, mystical (if not magical) beings that are not human, lots of love interest, a cranky mother (in-law), transformations, oneiric devices where people dream and sleep and change (their minds), lots of (un) happy couples, a cast of thousands, a dog, acrobats, and an actor in charge of playing a wall, a lion, and/or the man in the moon. Dump all of that into a cocktail shaker with some mist, lighting and sound effects, shake well, and pour into a clean glass of appropriate shape. Serve with a twist of mint (or lime zest). As far as the actions goes, anything goes, including, but not limited to a man being turned into an ass, a woman who does not get eaten by a lion, an existential wall, and lots of tree climbing. What really makes this play interesting is the atmosphere of uncontrolled (but orchestrated) chaos which creates an atmosphere of brutal irony, deep ambiguity, and profound satire. None of the lines, scenes, actors, or plot devices are what they seem to be. In other words, the absurdity of the story line is supposed to bother the audience who are riding an out-of-control theatrical roller coaster. The trick is, if you are the director, don’t let it crash, unless you are willing to let it crash. Control every muscle, every word of every line, and let it seem to crash. At the last moment, you apply the brakes just in the nick of time. This is what you get from a Steven Pounders production: sensuous physicality. His actors move like cats when they have to, die gloriously when possible, and love each other when appropriate. The ensemble of acrobats and tumblers were relentless, and the pacing of the play was breathless when it needed to be, contemplative when the words were important. I personally could have done with less screaming (a young actor thing) and less hysteria, but the entire production was so good that I forgive that. Most actors can do tragedy and romance rather well, but comedy and comedic timing are a little trickier, and there were times when the actors steamrolled some very funny stuff (not Bottom (Jeff Wittekiend), he got it right). Go slower, work on delivering the perfect punch line, the exquisite double-take, and forget about your dignity. One could, from time to time, see the actors trying to work at a slower pace, fighting with themselves. The play itself is a reflection of life itself–fragmented, non-linear, ironic, and discontinuous. Costuming and make-up were top notch, especially for the ensemble of sprites and fairies. The main set was a gloriously large tree, nicely symbolic, and hugely metaphoric. Lighting and sound were on the mark. Perhaps the only thing that needed correcting in the entire production was a program with a couple of notes about the play, WS, and something about this production. Dramaturge notes were conspicuously missing. Tip of the hat to all involved for a wonderful evening at the theater.

On banning books

Any book that is really worth reading has probably been objected to by someone. You see, when you tell the truth about the world, it offends the sensibilities of those who would falsify it with rancid beliefs, white lies, bigotry, spurious myths, and half-truths. Censors would have us think that they are doing us a favor by cleaning up the world by banning books, editing the content, and eliminating a certain subversive element that is out to destroy “our way of life.” Books, any books, usually bring change. Writers are like forensic social anthropologists–they look under rocks, brush off the dirt, make observations about the way the world works, hypothesize about truth and other abstract conditions. People who ban books usually do it with best of intentions. They get a whiff of a title that someone tells them is bad, that book contains gratuitous violence, or graphic sexual scenes, or subversive political ideas, or magic, or irreligiosity, or communism, or anti-American sentiments. Of course, the poor book banner has probably never had an original thought of their own, they probably don’t own books, they probably don’t read books. People who would ban books don’t read and usually operate completely on hearsay and rumor. They function by fear, reacting, not thinking, not thinking critically about the foolishness that they are committing. Books inspire thinking, reasoning, but they also raise questions, explore ideas and inspire creativity and spirit. Readers will always fight to make their own decisions, assume responsibility for themselves, live with doubt and ambiguity, explore the paradoxes of suffering and failure. Readers can live with the moral responsibility of freedom and all of its implied ethical problems. Freedom can bring uncertainty and the ethical dilemma of having to make personal judgments. People who are willing to ban books usually have a very simplistic, if not naive, black and white view of the way the world works. They equate books with the changes that are ruining their ideal existence, that challenge their morality and ideals. They think that if you read something, you are automatically a proponent of that idea. That idea is, of course, idiotic, simplistic and naive. Actually, banning books really has the opposite effect on readers. Readers will search out a banned book and read it. Nothing drums up interest like a little controversy. Perhaps I should thank all those censors and book banners for raising a ruckus about so many wonderful titles—Harry Potter, Huck Finn, the list is endless. Historically, the Church’s Index, a catalogue of banned materials, was used as a sales list for booksellers across Europe, selling legitimate titles out the front door and selling banned material out the back door. Ban a book and you will insure its success. Those who would ban books live in fear that truth about their world will hurt them, whether that truth be political, racial, religious, sexual, or economic. Yet, I would also suggest that their attempts to protect themselves only shine light into the darkest corners of their repressed lives. There is no chance that banning a book ever had the intended consequence of repressing an idea or killing the truth. Just ask Galileo.

On Dark Shadows star Jonathan Frid/Barnabas Collins

Jonathan Frid, the Canadian actor who played the melancholy vampire of the ultimately campy and strange soap opera, Dark Shadows, died Friday in Hamilton, Ontario. He was 87. The production values were low, the dialogues were melodramatic, and the special effects were horrific, but not because the show was scary. For an eight-year-old, the show was incredibly spooky, frightening, and creepy. I guess the production values for a daily soap opera lent themselves to a campy, gothic, soap opera about witches, werewolves, vampires, ghosts, curses, the undead, and general supernatural salad that probably invented a few new ghouls and goblins. The best part of this outrageous production was watching all the actors play their roles straight as if they believed every word. One often did not know whether to scream in terror or laugh because it was so funny. The show was a parody, a complicated riff as it were, on the whole idea of soap operas: people fall in love, they fall out of love, they are greedy, they fall in love with the wrong person, violence ensues, people disappear, they reappear, somebody gets their arm cut off, there is a fire, a monster lurks somewhere in this dark old house, at least one character turns into a werewolf, somebody lets the vampire out of his coffin, someone gets pregnant, another fire ensues, and so on. Soap operas are played with no specific end in mind. They are continuous, which is particularly interesting if you are a 175 year-old vampire who is looking for a lost love who has been reincarnated, conveniently, in the ravishing 21 year-old daughter of the creaky (creepy) mansion’s patriarch, the great-great-great grandnephew of said vampire. So now we can add incest to the list of creepy behaviors crawling through this soap. Frid fell into this role and became an instant pop icon of the period. In an era before video-taping, people would stay home to watch the soap, which was filmed and shot in a very tantalizing way: never show the monsters or the blood, unless it’s the Friday episode and you want to leave people hanging. The show would be immersed in the most inane dialogues about ghosts and witches and such and the thing would never really progress. Show me the monster! Yet it would progress just enough to keep it interesting, a kind of soap opera striptease. Frid played the role of the melancholy, misunderstood, but blood-thirsty vampire probably better than he ever wanted to. Fangs, cane, strange bangs, ruddy cheeks, he oozed vampire from every pore, and of course, the women watching from home could only guess what those fangs might feel like on their own throats. The show was a campy romp through repressed Victorian sexuality that played quite well on television, and Frid starred in more than six hundred episodes before it finally burned itself out, which is the only logical end for a soap opera this strange. Tip-of-the-hat to a great actor who turned into a pop icon vampire, and only ever flashed a smile when he knew lunch was about to be served. He never drank…wine.

On success (or failure?)

Success is a strange animal. A little bit like bourbon, a little is very tasty and makes your head swim a little, but too much will make you sick and might even kill you. We live in a society obsessed with material success—intellectual success, not so much. We tell our children that only winning will do, and success is gauged by how many wins you have. We sign our children up for every team there is: football, dance, tennis, baseball, debate, color guard, wrestling, track, equestrian, gymnastics, science fair, tiddly-winks, twister, but other than making them take all AP classes, do we worry about their intellectual growth as people? The only possible outcome is victory. As someone who wasn’t very good at sports, or competitions in general, I could never measure success in terms of victories. I measured my success in terms of participation. Participation is great, of course, but the accolades go the victors, not the losers, not the also-rans. In many senses, I am one of an enormous anonymous multitude plodding along doing my thing. People who live in the public eye as movie stars or rock stars or politicians let popular success go to their heads. I’m thinking about people like Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson. The pressure of living in public 24/7 is just too great for any one person to tolerate for any expended period. Eventually, they needed drugs to sleep and drugs to wake up. Privacy was impossible, and living like a normal person was a fantasy. Eventually, all three imploded under the stress and died due to drug overdoses. Students who are very successful in high school and college always run a similar risk of risk of believing their own press clippings. I much prefer to students who have garnered fewer accolades, and have substituted hard work for genius. Hard work in education is always more valuable than genius. The genius might have a great insight and be horrible glib and charismatic, but the hard worker will finish their thesis or dissertation, and the genius will struggle and may never finish. The Einsteins of the world prove the rule: they are so rare that they stand out as oddballs and iconoclasts. Real success, the kind of success that endures, the kind that matters, is based on hard work and dedication. Having a big ego will only ever get in your way, and if you actually think you are star in your field, you are probably only a legend in your own mind. There is always someone else who writes better, has more insight, and has a better job than you do. All success is fleeting and cruel, demanding a high price of those who would pray at that altar. Real success is not about getting trophies or medals, gold records or money. Real success is not about receiving any material goods at all. Success is about the journey, doing the work, demonstrating loyalty and humility, working in the shadows, finishing a job, turning in a paper, getting a degree. Success, any success, is fleeting and cruel and devours the successful from the inside out. Real success is never measured; it is lived on a day-to-day basis, based on humility and respect for those around you, and the daily assurance that you owe all of your success to the kindness of others.

On Clue (game and movie)

I think that Miss Scarlett did it with the revolver in the library. Clue is a very funny board game, and an even funnier movie. Everything is based on the conventions of the standard detective novel a la Christie or Hammett, and both game players and viewers expect that a solution will be reached, the guilty discovered, and punishment doled out. We depend on the conventions of detective fiction to rebuild our broken and chaotic world. We cannot depend on real-life crimes to be solved, so we resort to the world of fiction where the truth can actually be known. Clue is a fantasy in which players work to reorder a world that is torn by conflict, strife, and betrayal. The game is played out on board which is the floor plan for a rather extravagant large mansion, including secret passage ways, a billiard room, a conservatory, a lounge, and a ballroom. I dare say that most players cannot relate to this floor plan, further pushing the game into the realm of fantasy and further removing it from the verisimilitude of daily life. In other words, solutions to real problems are not forthcoming, but in the fantasy world of the extremely rich, crimes get solved and the world has order. Not only would players love to live in an orderly world where the wicked are punished and crime does not pay, they would also like to live in the opulent world signified by the game board. The real world, which has nothing to do with the “Clue” world, is filled with unsolved crimes, violent murders, and the daily grind, which includes work, family and routine. The game of Clue is about solving a murder, but there really is no blood or gore or tragedy. After the first game is over, you simply reshuffle and move on. The 1985 movie, Clue, inspired by the board game, is a wonderfully subversive commentary on opulence, corruption, power, violence and treachery. All of characters are there from the board game, but this time they have back stories, their paths are inter-related, everybody lies, no one is innocent, and the entire movie completely subverts the detective novel genre by offering three possible endings with three possible culprits. In other words, there is no way of really knowing who did it. The characters are all cynical and dark, sarcastic and jaded. In the end, there really isn’t a solution since they are all guilty and a solution that would put one or another in jail is foiled. None of characters is worth salvaging, communism is a red-herring, and they all amount to a bunch of lying, corrupt capitalists who are neither redeemable nor worthy of further consideration. The movie is a wicked spin on the board game because it doesn’t resolved a crime, murder is just convenient, and people are disposable. Further, this entire dead end scenario is played out in the opulence of decadent free-wheeling capitalist success. People are meant to be used and thrown away, murder is most foul but it happens, and redemption may not be possible. Although I do suspect Miss Scarlett, I also think Colonel Mustard is looking awfully suspicious as well.

On canceled

If there is a sorrier or sadder word in the English anguish than “canceled,” I don’t know what it might be. So yesterday, in the chaos of a hail/lightening/tornado storm at the DFW airport, they canceled five hundred flights, affecting thousands of passengers, and I was one of them. All these cancellations collapsed the airline’s ability to rebook anyone in any kind of orderly fashion. I received a sad little text message letting me know that my flight was canceled, but they would be back to me soon with re-booking information. Well, that was yesterday, and they still haven’t contacted me. My friends in Admissions, a very resourceful group, re-grouped, made a new plan, Stan, and we made it back to Waco this morning with the help of a very kind admissions counselor who got up this morning at 5:30 to retrieve us from the DFW area. As of this moment, I have heard nothing about rebooking, although, paradoxically, I did get my suitcase back this evening, and they even brought it out to my house. What sweethearts! Yet, sitting there in the airport with all hell breaking loose, with nowhere to go, with a sinking feeling in my stomach, with pressing appointments back home, I had no hope of making it home on time for anything. Ironically, I had made it on the plane to return home, only to be kicked off of the plane by the cabin crew. The weather went dark, the wind came up, the rain started to fall, and before we knew it, we had a full-fledged hail storm pounding the airport, the planes, the cars, the people. Canceled. They canceled everything in sight: the only things moving on the ramps were nickle-sized pieces of hail that were pelting everyone and everything. I went to a hotel for the night, knowing that I would be retrieved in the morning, which made the delay and cancellation a little more bearable. I couldn’t blame the airline. They didn’t order hail and tornadoes for the early afternoon. Many of planes took hail damage, so there was no getting out of DFW by air. Our contingency plan was the only effective way of resolving our castaway condition. We all work for a pretty good organization, and they were not about to let us stay stranded and unloved in the Metroplex. We rolled into Waco about 10 am, went to the airport to do the paperwork on our lost bags, and headed to work. So we were canceled, stranded, castaway, and abandoned by our carrier, but it’s all good, thanks to the kind generosity and sharp ingenuity of all those involved. My only regret was having to use the same clothes for two days straight. My spare change of clothing, you ask? In my lost suitcase, of course!

On "no name" post

Who says you must have a topic when you write. Topics, thesis sentences, are way over-rated. I listen to people talk on cable news, and they don’t have anything to say, but they sit and blather on and get paid for it. So tonight I am opting for the “no theme” option. I’m not going to talk about new stadiums, or basketball, or primaries, or anything else that might be in the news. I’m going to focus on nothing at all. Now one would think that this would be easy, but trying to write about nothing at all is harder than it appears. You first must flush everything out of your brain drain that has been stuck there since you wrote yesterday, and there’s a lot of flotsam and jetsam floating around in that trap. I can’t write about budgets, wars, sexism, drug cartels, dog food ads, home shopping networks, Wisconsin, Rush, Rick, Mitt, summer-like weather in March, spring training, football, birth control or voter fraud. Those are topics, and I’m not writing about any of them. Of course, more mundane topics such as potato chips or dogs are also off the table. Spring break is off the table. I am tempted to write about going on vacation, or trying to stop a leak in one of our bathrooms, but I shall refrain from any of that to maintain this note free of content. To focus on nothing is to really focus on everything, and then brush everything out of your mind. I’m not going to worry, complain, criticize, critique, ponder, mull or ruminate on anything but the emptiness of this meditation. I’m not going to use any literary tropes, metaphors or synecdoche to express the universal emptiness of a note about nothing that is slowly rotting over a very slow heat. Let the vultures make their nests on the balconies of the presidential palace, I just won’t go there. I won’t write about decadence, chaos, or dust. Nothingness is an ideology all of its own, nestled comfortably between nihilism and contrariness. Why does everything have to be about something? What about not getting upset, about not worrying about the next thing, and letting go of the latest cause célèbre? So I write about nothing: not the apple that Adam ate, not the computer that Gates built, not about turning the double play. Clean slate, no topic, nothing, null set, zero, a void, dark matter, vacuum, empty set. (That last sentence doesn’t even have a verb.)

On relaxing

One would think that writing about relaxation would be a walk in the park, but I am so stressed out. My good Minnesota-Lutheran ethics just won’t allow me to relax because relaxing is the same as being a good-for-nothing bum. If you aren’t working, you are slacking! Yet, if I work all the time, I get to the point where I start forgetting to do things, get cranky and ornery, and I become ineffective. But if I relax for a moment I feel guilty, and I need to get back to work. What is wrong with me? Really, what is relaxing, anyway, but not working? I know that all work and no play make Jack a dull boy, but what does that really mean? Nothing but questions tonight, and I am afraid of the answers. For example, let’s just say that I want to sit and read a book that has nothing to do with research or teaching, drink something tasty, and put my feet up. I might even let my book down and doze for a few minutes, letting my glasses fall into my book and my head droops to one side. I might even get a snack that is not only not nutritious, it is downright bad for me. Potato chips would be a good choice. Maybe some salted peanuts. So I just let that pile of exams sit for a day and smoulder. The grass in the yard needs mowing, there are dirty dishes on the counter, the taxes need finishing. There is always something else that needs to be done. Now I don’t want to obsess over this issue of relaxing, but I still find the whole idea of sitting down and not doing something useful to be rather stressful. What if someone sees me relaxing, watching old re-runs of ancient black and white sitcoms? I have heard that relaxing can lower your blood pressure, brighten your outlook, and improve mental health. Who studies relaxing? Seems like a bit of a paradox: it’s as if that paper, by definition, would never get written. Maybe I’ll put on a little music to lighten the mood. Where are my slippers? Maybe I still have some caramel corn left over from Christmas. Should I start to read The Hunger Games tonight? Relaxing is going to damage my self-image, but I think it is something I would like to try, at least once or twice. And if I practice and I like it, I might try again, but without the guilt. Naw.

On Oscar

What did Billy Crystal say last night? “Tonight we are going to watch a bunch of millionaires give each other little golden statues.” I have watched the Oscars for a couple of decades, and they really are no more transcendent now than they were in 1929 when the Screen Actors Guild started handing out the faceless statuettes. They just add another level of mysticism, elitism and glamor to an already very selective and exclusive club to which no mortal has access. Like a bunch of crazed voyeurs, we tune in each year to stare at the beautiful people come together to out-stage even each other. Their pathetic attempts at saying “thank you” border on the banal and boring. Basically, the Oscars are here to tell us all that we are just normal human beings and have no chance of ever attaining the fame and stature of the stars who will possibly win a little golden statuette. Oscar is a talisman of exclusivity. The people who receive the award have worked hard, but they also have had their share of good luck. And how many, exactly, have sold their souls to the Devil to get that little golden guy? Far from jealous, I would say that having a normal life is a pretty special thing. I can walk into any Starbucks in any airport in the world and not have to worry about being recognized, about having to be nice to fans, about having every inch of my life under a microscope. While I am out in public, my stress levels are very low. I can go to the grocery store, get my junk and get out. I’m not so sure that giving out autographs, getting lots of photos taken, and having my life scrutinized at every turn would be that interesting. In a sense, any of those famous people is just a regular person as well. Notting Hill (1999) is an unglorified look into the public/private pain of an actress (Julia Roberts) who is looking for love, but her all too public face makes that impossible. The stress of living a public life cannot be at all very fun. Having a face that half the planet will recognize has to be a pain in the neck. Oh, I wouldn’t mind the money, at least at first, and I’m sure the fame is great for the ego, at least at first, but in the long run, the press, the paparazzi, the news channels must be both tedious and boring. You cannot gain a pound or grow old, you cannot have a movie that goes bad, you cannot play characters that your fans might hate, you cannot fail to live up to their expectations. So let them pass out their little statues. The movies may or may not be good. Some of my favorite films were never nominated for anything, and, as far as I’m concerned, many of the big names might never have been made at all.