What is the Work You Can't Not Do? (Finding what you love and doing it till you die)

Today, we discuss what the hell I've been up to for the last few weeks!
PATREON!
That is Patreon.
For a brief primer:

• Patreon is a crowd-sourcing site for artists.
• It doesn't matter what you make, all types are supported.
• People provide single or ongoing donations for either campaigns or artists that they love and support.

I dig this.
I dig this so much, so hardcore that I made one.
MY PATREON!

I made a thing mum and dad!

So that is what I have been doing the last few weeks:
Preparing and getting ready for my launch and then making sure that I keep up with the deadlines I set for myself.

And it has been hard
How hard?
SO.
Why?

Well, it is a lot that I have set for myself.
And a big adjustment.
To go from producing maybe one maybe two things per month or year to producing constantly all of the time.

Why did I do this?
Because it makes me happy.
I have found that clear, definable goals and accomplishing them make me happy.
Clear progress to an achievable thing that is hard and impressive makes me happy.

The problem?

Deadlines.

I don't have any.

When you make art professionally or for an audience or yourself or whatever (subject of another post) you have no deadlines.
Not unless you have a publisher or a patron breathing down your neck.
Which isn't an antagonistic relationship by the way, it is just a relationship.
Think about how many editors/publishers/collaborators/readers are thanked in the credits/dedication page of every book/piece.
There has to be a reason!
It is because it can be a genuinely healthy relationship when handled well.

Big Problem:
I cannot make my own deadlines.
It is true, I set deadlines for myself and the art just does not happen.
I stare at my computer screen for hours watching sooo much Facebook scroll past.
And oop...it's New Year's...again...
So I produce.
I write this blog.
I do things to keep on keeping on.

But, it can be hard.
Because too often it can feel like shouting into the Void.
It can be demoralizing.
To shout and not even hear an echo.
When your number of viewers declines.
When your subscriptions fall.
When you aren't growing in a clear, linear, geometric progression.

BUT THAT IS LIFE!
So you keep going.
You keep growing.
You keep making.

But, art cannot happen in a vacuum.
Not for me.
And so I need that sense of deadlines.
Of having a relationship.
Accountability.

Amanda Palmer in her brilliant book: The Art of Asking
She states:

“When you’re an artist, nobody ever tells you or hits you with the magic wand of legitimacy. You have to hit your own head with your own handmade wand. And you feel stupid doing it.

There’s no “correct path” to becoming a real artist. You might think you’ll gain legitimacy by going to art school, getting published, getting signed to a record label. But it’s all bullshit, and it’s all in your head. You’re an artist when you say you are. And you’re a good artist when you make somebody else experience or feel something deep or unexpected.”

~Amanda Palmer, in The Art of Asking, pg. 43

I am an artist when I say I am.
Brilliant!
But, when do I say I am?
When I feel like one.
When do I feel most like an artist?

For me, most of the time, it has to do with audience.
Specifically deadlines.
Someone very special once said:

"The fear of an opening night just lights a fire under the actors' collective ass." 

 She was referring to their fear of an audience.
Their fear of accountability.
Of being found out.
Of being under scrutiny from the Fraud Police (another Amanda Palmer term) and being found wanting.
Of not being artists.
Of not being actors.

So what do they do?
They make some art.
And they make it up quick.

I miss that sense of art.
Of being a part of a larger collective, an institution with deadlines and things.
It is very important to my artistry to know how and when to produce things.
And to make them well.

So what is the secret to doing that for oneself?
As the eminent Sanjay from Slings & Arrows says:

"It's all...a trick!"

It's like a spell.
You say the words or set up circumstances and then it becomes real.
So I need deadlines, but not from me?
Who sets them up if not for me?

The paradox was killing me artistically.
And then it clicked.
All deadlines are arbitrary.
I decide how and when to do everything in my life.
Nobody told me to go to college (well, yes they id, but I agreed to go)
Nobody told me to go to grad school.
Nobody told me to start theatre companies.
How did I do it.
By saying screw it and telling other people to tell me what to do.

SO:
Finally I said screw it, I'll set up something I can't shirk.
Something I don't want to shirk.
Something public and awesome.
So I did Patreon.
It is still waaaay too new to know if it is working for real.
This may all just be beginner's luck.
But, it feels wonderful to commit to something.
To throw myself into it wholeheartedly.

Bamboo farmers work for three years on the shoots before there is any sign of growth.
One day it shoots up twenty feet.
They had no idea while they were working all those years, but one day it just pays off.
But, that doesn't happen if you abandon the field.
Or don't till the earth.

So this is me tilling.
Here is a wonderful TED talk titled Find the Work you Love:

He set himself up for success by surrounding himself by people who were committed to the same work that he loved.
He woke up every day and committed himself over and over to it.
And one day...it shot up like bamboo.
And he found himself in the world where he always wanted to be.

So...that is what I have been doing the last few weeks.

Manifest Coolness From Nerd to Shining Dweeb (Wouldn't it be Cool If...)

Today, let us discuss coolness.

Let me start by saying I have never been cool.
I have never thought of myself as cool or have any idea how to be cool.
The mere fact I use the word cool should highlight my credentials.

But, I have been studying cool people for years.
And I have come down to a couple of criteria for identifying cool people

• They always seem to be happy
• They always seem to do what they want
• They always seem to somehow succeed at those things

Those basic criteria are generally what I consider to be cool/coolness.

So how do we go about becoming cool?

Well, it is tricky. 

My new belief is we are all innately cool.

But, are we the coolest?

Are we as cool as we want to be?

My contention is an emphatic YES

WE ARE AS COOL AS WE WANT TO BE.

So what does that mean?

WE ARE IN CONTROL OF HOW COOL OUR LIVES CAN BE.

I usually distill this down to a simple adage that I repeat often:
"We get the life we craft."

SO what are we crafting?
I look around and I see bills piling up, a seasonal job, not enough time in the day, and too much Netflix binges.
That isn't terribly cool.
Not like the cool kids that I know/see who go skydiving or travel the world.
That makes me frustrated.
Why do they get to do it and not me?
What makes them so freaking cool?

And therein lies the truth of it.
They aren't cooler than me.
They aren't more special than me.
They are just doing it.

Looking at the list again:

• They always seem to be happy
• They always seem to do what they want
• They always seem to somehow succeed at those things

So why are they happy?
Well they do what they want.
They always seem to succeed (for expansion on why this may be so, check out How to Write a Better Life)

Now, I am not suggesting that these cool people aren't living lives filled with tragedy and suffering just like the rest of us
(My main contention is that they are the rest of us)
But the point is that when you are living a legend, when you are living not just a cool life, but the coolest life, you get to wake up every day.
You don't drag yourself to a 9 to 5, you run to it.
And why?
Because your life becomes a training montage!
You're excited and free to go and do whatever you want.

Why the word "COOL"?
Because it works for me.
It sings to me.
I have no idea why or how, but it does.
So I run with it.

When I wake up and I think, "Wouldn't it be cool if..." I take that as a big flipping sign and run with it.
So after years I am finally:

• Writing story (novels/shorts)
• Writing poetry
• Taking film photographs
• Taking dance classes
• Running workshops
• Travelling the world
• Teaching
• Cooking

All of the things that I thought, "Wouldn't it be cool if" but never thought at which I would be good.

That stops now. 

I want to be the coolest me.

And that's pretty cool.

How to Ruin Young Actors (Daniel Day Lewis...I don't Blame You)

Today, let us discuss film/critique/students/film critique/film students.

There is a disturbing trend in critiquing films that troubles me.
It is, in effect, this:
Film=Reality=Good.

The argument goes something like:

1. Film is like unto Reality
2. Reality is good.
3. Therefore, the more Film is like unto Reality, the better it is

This is a hyper simplistic version of a number of statements that I read in student critiques/hear actors discuss about performances in film.

With this in mind we get examples like:

"I really loved this film. It was super great. I really felt their emotions. I would act that way in those situations and therefore, it was good. I felt like I was really in the scenes."

-Everybody

So what does this do?
Well, I would normally say that this line of reasoning isn't of necessity wrong.
And it isn't.
Verisimilitude (n. truth-seeming) is a common, pragmatic, and often effective approach to art/movie making.
By treating the situations and acting/directing them "truthfully" or what some might call "faithfully" to "reality" (hashtag appropriate use of quotes) can often lead to good scenes and good movies.
The point that I am dancing around is that it is a style.

Verisimilitude is a style of film making.
See film is a crafted medium.
It is make believe.
But, for some reason, we do not like to be reminded of that.

There is an idea that needs to be addressed and dealt with.
I am talking about Daniel Day Lewis.

This man.
I adore everything about this man as a performer.
He is witty and charming and compelling and just wonderful.
And I hate him.

Daniel Day Lewis is probably one of the most brilliant actors ever.
I have never heard anyone dispute this claim.
However, he tends to be a little....well, notorious for blurring the line between performance and reality.

In The Unbearable Lightness of Being he taught himself Czech.
Nobody required it of him and it was American made, but that didn't stop him.
But, that is just good, clean character work.
Mr. Lewis goes further.

In The Last of the Mohicans Daniel Day Lewis refused to eat anything that he didn't kill himself.
Also he learned how to hunt and trap.

In In the Name of the Father Mr. Lewis spent time holed up in the penitentiary where the cast were shooting.
He spent whole nights there and kept himself awake for three days in preparation for an interrogation scene.
Reportedly, he had film crew throw water and verbal abuse at him to make it a more authentic performance.

In The Crucible Daniel Day Lewis didn't wash for the entire shoot to experiment with 17th century hygiene standards.

Reportedly also built the house and set that his character lived in. 

In My Left Foot Daniel Day Lewis insisted on being carried out of his wheel chair and have all of his meals spoon fed to him.

In Gangs of New York Daniel Day Lewis refused to wear non-period clothing.
He caught pneumonia.
Reportedly, he refused modern medicine as well.

Now, are any of these tales true?
I have no clue.
America has no clue.
Daniel Day Lewis may have no clue.

The point is that people believe them to be true.
And, what is more, learning artists and critics believe that in order for a truly phenomenal performance to manifest, they have to make it 'real'.
And why?
Because that is what Daniel Day Lewis does.

The mental process goes something like

1. Identify a great performance
2. What did they do to create that performance?
3. Emulate what they did.

The trouble with this is that each performer is unique and different

Yes.

You are all snowflakes.

Daniel Day Lewis has spent years honing his craft and has found something that works remarkably well for him.

Where I get worried is when young artists tend to be selective about the process.

Instead of:

1. Gangs of New York was a great performance by Daniel Day Lewis
2. He emulated the period and did a butt ton of research for the role
3. I should do a butt ton of research for my period role and see if it works

It goes more like:

1. Gangs of New York was a great performance by Daniel Day Lewis
2. He caught pneumonia for the role
3. I should catch pneumonia for the role

It may not be as blatant as that, but the point stands:

Cherry picking what makes a great performance great creates a culture of danger for actors.

 And it is systemic!
Whenever I hear film critics talk about what somebody "did" to "get into the role" red flags start flying.
Actors injure themselves in the middle of a shoot and keep acting:

Yes.
That is his blood.

Now, these are fun stories and actors and crew have fun retelling them.
And we, as audience, love to have a little window into the process.
But, by setting these moments and the actors who manage to "keep acting" on a pedestal....
Well, it creates that culture of danger I mentioned.

So what should we do?
Just stop acting? Stop producing films? Avoid these moments?
Well, no.

But, being a bit more selective about how they are presented is, I think, responsible.
By promoting this kind of acting/behavior in our film critiques, we have set it as the standard for all
That just isn't the case.

What can we do?

• Speaking of them as isolated incidents. Not every actor does this, not every actor needs to do this. Speaking about actors/great performances regardless of how they did what they did or exploring healthy ways to manifest a character would help
• Mentioning the ramifications on crew/family/life. Some are willing to pay the toll, but for those who aren't, mentioning the morale hit a set takes when an actor goes for the method gold can convince even the staunchest supporters. Don't believe me? Read some of the press about Shia LaBeouf (I should mention none of it is recent, but still)
• Downplaying the extreme behavior as what leads to the great performances. Nearly every learning actor I know has tried to pull a My Left Foot and have people carry them or done something silly dangerous in order to get into the part. But, what learning actor has ever learned another language? Or become a survivalist for their role? If you are unwilling to do the crazy technical stuff, you probably aren't ready to be treated like royalty either.

The Problem With One Punch Man (And Stories Like It)

Today let us discuss Saitama
This guy:

In case you didn't catch it...
He is from One Punch Man!
So called because...
Everything he fights only takes a single punch.

I was really excited for this story.
Really excited.

Because of things like this:

See I like a particular kind of story.
Stories like Dragonball Z with Goku:

Who eventually becomes a deity:

Hail!
Or Superman (who already is)

So when I heard about this story featuring a guy who could one punch anything...
I was intrigued.
But, more importantly I was excited for the story.

See, I have been playing a lot of role playing games recently.
And by that I mean listening and preparing for a lot of roleplaying games (still trying to get my game groups off the ground).
And the thing that I notice more than anything else...
The combat systems are pretty broken.

And by that I mean the players just waltz into caves and caverns unprotected and unmolested by the Evil Arch-Demon of Evil and proceed to lay waste to their whole crew.
Which only consists of five goblins and a big bad ogre who dies because the characters roll really good.

I thought this was just me or just a few game groups.
But, it happens all of the time.
So I started asking Why?

I realized.
The designers want all of us to be Superman.
To feel in control and powerful and awesome.
The gamemasters want us to feel that way.
So the designers give players mechanics that will let us overcome challenges and most gamemasters will give players challenges in a regimented, easy to beat progression.

Effectively, this is the equivalence of level-grinding

And in no way reflects the moments in story that I love best.
Namely, this:

For those who don't know:
Goku is the hero, he is operating at around Power level: 9000+ whereas Vageta exists in a world hovering around Power level: 20,000+
Goku is tired and worn out.
Beaten to a pulp.
Vageta in a rage decides to annihilate the whole planet with Goku.
Goku relies on his last attack to (hopefully) wipe out Vageta.
He risks his body and life to overcome Vageta's attack and barely comes out equal.
Then, he pushes it one step further only to beat Vageta for one minute.
(he comes back by the way and wrecks Goku's shit)

Why is this powerful?
Because Goku is actually weaker than Vageta in this moment.
He risks his life to overcome a superior enemy and is rewarded for his bravery by earning a reprieve.
Story protects the protagonist.
So he can recklessly endanger his life despite his mentor (King Kai) telling him it is too dangerous.
In doing so, he wounds Vageta enough to win the round and weaken him for his fellow team members (back when they were a team) to ultimately defeat Vageta.

So why bring this up?
Because too many RPG players act like Vageta.
They have all the power and go stomping through the world annihilating or saving people and places arbitrarily with no regard for who or what they do.
They are rewarded by the gamemaster for it with XP and Gold and become more powerful.
They are treated like heroes when in fact they are villains.
And nobody in the world is powerful enough to stand up to them because they are protected by the game (armor, saving throws, unconsciousness, clerics, healers, potions, mana)
All of it is to make sure that the players don't lost their health points and heaven forbid die!

How does this relate to Saitama/One Punch Man?
He is the embodiment of pretty much every character I see in RPGs these days.

• Overly powerful.
• Associated with a 'heroic' organization.

I was really excited to see how the storytellers handled Saitama's inability to face a foe that he couldn't just defeat.
I think it is one of the most important stories.
But, I think they are ruining it.

The show is centered on Saitama

Who starts off this strong.
He is a hero as a "hobby"
Why?
Because he hasn't found anyone who can put up a fight.
The basis of the first episode is this guy: the "villain" augmenting himself to be the "strongest man"
Saitama relates to him and says that it is lonely.
Right now I feel for Saitama because he seems to regret his choices and what led him to being the strongest.

Finding out more about his history reveals he just trained really hard and that is it.
Also, he has no remorse over the monsters that he kills.
And seems more interested in coupons than preserving life.

Saitama is not a hero.
He is a villain.
Terrifying.

The biggest problem that I have with the show is that they seem unable to do anything with Saitama.
He is too jaded to really care about anyone or anything.
So here is my fix:

How to write a story for your overly powerful characters

1) Let them kill everything. Seriously. Give characters in your RPGs the ability to one punch things. It makes the combat go so much more quickly. And it gives us an excuse to get on with the story!

Because we care about combat scenes like this:

And not this

2) So let them kill everything. Now, what? Honestly. I consider just letting the characters wander around a barren world with no characters because they killed everyone. Let them die of old age without conflict or adversaries or companionship or the wonderful NPCs that the gamemaster creates for their enjoyment. They would probably kill them anyway.

3) If they want story in spite of their bloodbath and mayhem, introduce it retroactively. Let the characters be the unwholesome villains that they are, let them collect rare and powerful artifacts for the evil organization that supports their mercenary lifestyle, then, have the real heroes show up to put an end to their corrupt lives. Have them kill the heroes and (hopefully) realize the errors of their ways. If not, have the evil organization overthrow them and try to murder them with the super powerful artifacts they turned in.

4) If the players complain of the lack of combat, introduce them to enemies they cannot just one punch: swarms of insects that devour them bit by bit, but cannot hit with their weaponry. It forces them to either be clever or die. If they complain that they cannot win at this, introduce them to whole villages of orc (insert your game's minority class here) adolescents that they will probably slaughter with glee and then show the grief stricken parents. Tell them how much gold their tears are worth.

The point is these characters consistently act like villains because gamemasters and storytellers allow them to get away with it.
No.
Villains die.
Wretchedly.
Look at Voldemort.

Do not let villains run free in the worlds that gamemasters take so much time to create.
Instead, introduce real conflict to their stories by illustrating the fact that they are not heroes.
Heroes do not act this way.

Now, this is not to say we could not have heroes like Saitama.

How to Play as One Punch Man

1) Value all life. Simple as that. Be like Batman. Be like Superman. Don't desire to kill, maim, and murder every sentient life form that you meet. It will make your life harder, sure, but you won't have the blood of children on your hands either so...

2) Don't use your powers. See point one. If you throw a punch...people die. It is that simple. Don't kill. That is your creed. Don't throw a punch unless you have to.

3) Give yourself a tragic backstory. See I thought Saitama was an experiment. One day he woke up with amnesia from a test tube surrounded by scientists poking at him. He defends himself only to murder everyone who came close. He is horrified by what he has done and becomes a hero in order to make amends.

Those are some of my solutions for playing a ridiculously overpowered character.
The conflict can come from the gamemaster in the form of social conflict
OR it can come from the character imposing personal limits on their power.
But, and here is the point, it is possible to do this in a fun, engaging way that does not involve murdering everything in sight.

And the other thing?
YOU CAN MURDER EVERYTHING IN SIGHT!
I don't have a problem with characters doing that if they are innately bad.
But, don't dress yourself as a hero if you are really a villain.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

How to be Impolite (Why Slapping your Scene Partner is Preferable to Saying Sorry)

Today we discuss Titus Andronicus.
Or at least my favorite bit to illustrate a larger point.
In particular, two noteworthy productions:
One at the Seattle Shakespeare Company:

And one at the Globe:

(You can just hear his balls swinging)

In particular, and I am going to go ahead and shout SPOILERS
Some things happen that I think we need to get out of the way.

• There is the rape, behanding, and de-tonguing of the sole virgin in the show (phew glad we started with that one)
• Her brothers are falsely accused of murder
• Her father has his hand cut off to appease the power mad Emperor
• His hand and his sons' decapitated heads are returned to him

This all culminates in what is perhaps the funniest exit in Shakespeare (yes, I am including Exeunt pursued by a bear):

Titus asks his brother to grab one son's head while he grabs the other.

Then, he asks his daughter to grab his hand.

One problem and I will wait for my audience to catch it...

SHE DOESN'T HAVE HANDS.

There, I said it.

Now, I want to illustrate how this was handled in each production:

1. At Seattle Shakes, Titus is driven to insanity by his grief. He is cold in his comfort, methodical. He asks his brother to remove one son's head. The brother ineptly reaches out grasping at the carrion. Titus takes the other and deftly pulls it off the pike. His brother does likewise. Titus lifts his hand off the pike and puts it in his daughter's face and asks her: "Bear thou my hand, sweet wench, between thy teeth." Dutifully she does so, they cross to center stage, hold a tableau, and awkwardly exit.  It was fun. But, was it art?
2. At The Globe, Titus is driven to insanity by his grief. He is cold in his comfort, methodical. He asks his brother to pick up one of his son's heads (they are in bloody bags, soaking on the floor). He does so. Titus grasps the other with his one good hand. And says to Lavinia: "Bear thou my hand, sweet wench." She looks at him. He gestures at her as if to say "My hands are full." And SHE SPENDS ONE FULL MINUTE TRYING TO LIFT IT WITH HER ELBOWS. Then, Titus, pityingly says, "Between thy teeth." And we see her horror and then her determination as she spends another 30 seconds trying before she grabs it and stands up to the horror of 500 spectators.

Now, if you can't tell...I like the second option more.

I would bet most anyone would (save those with infirm constitutions; seriously, people straight left the theatre at that moment).

WHY?

Impoliteness.

The ability to make things difficult onstage.

See, there is this thing necessary to story: Conflict

Conflict is necessary to story.

It is the antagonistic elements of the story embodied by people, natural/social forces, or things.

It can be literally anything, but it drives the characters towards their conclusion.

The first Titus is a great example of stage business in much theatre that I see.

It seems like great staging: the horror of forcing a putrid hand on his daughter.

But, that is textual!

What did the acting or the directing contribute to that moment?

Nothing. 

One actor said the lines written by Shakespeare and passed a hand to the logical place according to the line.

Conflict and impoliteness stem from making such a moment, any moment, every moment as difficult as humanly possible.

What do I mean by this?

What makes story/drama so attractive to audience is the opposing forces of protagonist and antagonism. 

The greater the polarity, the greater the story.

So it isn't enough to have someone without hands carry the hand in their teeth because the lines dictate it.

Another example?

There are so many....

When actors die onstage, but the body needs to be hidden, they always manage to fall just offstage.

Or when actors are about to be hanged and although they are "fighting for their life" they willingly step up onto the gallows.

These are opportunities! Missed ones.

I present for your viewing pleasure one of my favorite plays:

THE PLAY THAT GOES WRONG! (Yes! That is the actual title)

Why do I love this play so much?

Because Everything goes Wrong!

There is not a moment where anything goes right for these floundering community performers.

And so everything has to be fought for, figured out, and dealt with immediately.

Everything is really, really hard!

And that makes for great comedy and great drama.

SO what are some solutions?

1) Be more like Ella Enchanted.

Are you familiar with the premise?

A young girl is cursed with Obedience, capital OB.

She has to do everything asked of her.

However, she has to do what was literally asked, not the interpretation/meaning behind it.

Makes for a thorny problem when a willful girl sets her mind to it.

e.g. Asked for hot tea, gets it thrown in their face

Sack up and don't do everything that the director or fellow actors ask of you.

At least, don't do it in the way they asked it of you.

You will be surprised at the results.

2) Stop Saying Sorry, Ask Did it Work?

Mistakes happen.

Things muck up.

It happens. 

Onstage.

Use it!

Nobody ever did anything great without a little risk.

If you accidentally took a risk and it caused a reaction onstage, exploit it.

Meaning: ask if it worked.

Doesn't matter what it was: accidental butt grab, spilling, tripping, false exit, late entrance.

Find out if it worked and if it did, keep it.

3) Find Out what would Help the Most and do the Opposite

This takes some getting used to and is difficult to phrase without specific examples.

Scenario: You are asked to simulate an assassination. The man is before you, prone, open, ignorant of your premise. You are just that good. The only thing holding you back is your conscience. Damn, damn conscience! You open fire. The scene is done. Alternatively, the man becomes aware of your presence, he fights for his life, running about the room, dodging you and your pleas to just talk. He threatens the alarm, you stop him and now you have the choice to make: kill him or let him go and lose your own life. 

Basically, evaluate the ideal, the perfect ending to the scene/activity/moment.

Then, work against it.

Work as far in the opposite direction as you possibly can.

Start there, and then keep fighting.

Let the other people do the work and trust that they will carry you to where you need to go.

This takes practice.

It takes ensemble.

It takes trust.

Not every one will like this and it is not nearly as covert as the other two options.

This is meant to be tried in rehearsal and not during performance for safety concerns.

Living the Story You Always Dreamed (How to Write a Better Life)

Today, let us discuss A Million Miles in a Thousand Years

This book is...interesting.
It is about story. And Life.
It is about story as life.
Or is it life as story?
I cannot tell.

The premise goes:

• So Donald Miller wrote a book about his early life.
• A couple of film guys read and loved it, called him up to make a film about his life
• They started adapting the book for film
• Changes had to be made
• Donald asked why and they answered:
• "Your story is a great book, but a terrible film"

The biggest problem that Mr. Miller had with their critique of his book?

It was his life they were talking about.

Mr. Miller's life was going to make a boring film.

So they rewrote it.

So here are the basic guiding principles of story that Mr. Miller learned while adapting his life:

1. Character is someone who overcomes adversity to get what they want.
2. They have to do something good/nice (like save the cat) in the first twenty minutes of the film
3. Characters always need an inciting incident

You see, Mr. Miller realized as they started adapting his book for the screen, he could adapt his life for story purposes.

Think about that.

Thoreau has a wonderful quote that I always associated with this, but never thought it had actual practical application:

My life is the poem I would have writ/But, I could not both live and utter it.

Our lives are stories that we are all writing while we live them.
So, why are we writing the stories that we are?
Mr. Miller contends comfort.
We are "comfortable" in the lives that we lead.
But, that isn't terribly interesting when it comes to story.
How interesting is it to see people binge watch Netflix for nine hours?
Not very.

But, to see characters overcome adversity repeatedly in the face of overwhelming odds is the stuff of great story.
And so, as they worked to adapt Mr. Miller's book, the writers threw all kinds of obstacles in their character's way.

So Mr. Miller tried it in his own life by introducing our third point: Inciting Incidents
Characters are comfortable at the beginning of stories.
They don't want to travel or do anything too hard (think Bilbo in the Hobbit)

They have their creature comforts.
They are essentially islands.
But, something or someone appears who gives them little or no choice in the matter.
This can be displacement or a disaster or just plain Gandalf:

So what makes for an inciting incident?
Anything that forces a character into difficult circumstances.
Why difficult circumstances?
Because that is the only way characters change.
If it wasn't for Gandalf and the trip to the Lonely Mountain, Bilbo would live his days in Hobbiton smoking his pipe and eating his bread.
But, would it be a good story?
Not in the least.
So he signs the contract and is held accountable to its many sections for the rest of the book (stealing, saving dwarfs, and being a certified badass)

So we come to our first point for writing a better story:

1.  Introduce Inciting Incidents into your own Life

How does one do that?
By creating situations you cannot avoid.
Writing your own contracts that other people can hold you accountable for:
Want to write a book?
Introduce a dead line that other people know about
Want to learn a language?
Date someone with a different primary language. (think Love, Actually Colin Firth)

(Why yes I do speak...what was it again? *sips*)

The most important thing about introducing inciting incidents is to tie them to something that matters.
Make it a dream.
Why does Bilbo sign the contract?
Because there is a chance for thrill, adventure, comradery, and treasure!
Don't sign your contracts without something equally as amazing.
Make sure you get something out of your adventure.
But, remember, it will not be easy.

The next part of writing a better story:

2.  Embrace antagonism

Antagonism/antagonist has a negative connotation in our culture.
Nip that one right in the bud.
Antagonists are antithetical to the protagonist.
They come in a variety of colors and flavors: man, machine, nature, mind, self, etc.
But, what makes excellent story is always the conflict, the antagonistic forces in the universe that we live in.
It wouldn't mean anything if it weren't hard.
It wouldn't be any different from the beginning of the story.
So if you want to write better stories, be ready for a lot of hardship.
By embracing the hardship as a fact of good story, you will be able to face it with the kind of courage that we love in characters like Bilbo.

This next one I am not sure about

3.  Be nice

This one may not be necessary.
But, it is true in almost every story and every movie.
Within the first act/part of a story, we witness the protagonist do something like save the cat.
This is so common that it is referred to as just that: saving the cat.
Why?
It is important for the audience to sympathize with the character.
So writers come up with all sorts of ways to implement this including, but not limited to:

• saving a cat from a tree
• defending the nerd from bullies
• killing Hitler
• rescuing orphans from the incinerator (I may be misremembering Annie)

Point is, the stories we love best usually involve a likable protagonist that is able to demonstrate on a fundamental level that they are a good person and have a clear moral stance.

Goku from Dragonball

Superman from Everything

Characters like Aang from Avater: The Last Airbender

This kid is so good he makes the others look like bad guys

Don't believe me yet?

Harry Potter:

Tony Stark: 

Rocky: 

Now, this isn't absolutely necessary, there are other examples of phenomenal stories with protagonists commonly labelled anti-heroes:

But, uh...

Those don't end well

So, it is probably best to just stick with what you know: 

Being a decent all around human being and leave the murder to the sociopaths.

Now, all of this is true for writing story.

These are some of the simplest ways to help characters in your work:

1. Identify what they want/need
2. Throw obstacles in their way in order to get it
3. Watch them struggle
4. See how they do at the end and how they are different

But, Donald Miller maintains, and I believe as well, that it is possible to apply some of this process to living a better story.

Now, we are not the authors of our lives (much as we all may like to be).

There are absolutely things outside of our control.

We are characters in our own story...not authors

That is a very crucial distinction.
For Mr. Miller, the author is God Almighty.
For me, it is trickier; my atheism prevents me from pointing to a single source, but I acknowledge that there may be a Dungeon Master out there beyond my understanding scratching her head over my actions.
Point is, we are not authors.
We are not all powerful.
We cannot just write a new life for ourselves.
But, we can help it along.

• Set yourself up for success by identifying what you want (make it a dream)
• Sign a contract/introduce an inciting incident in order to get it.
• Work towards your goal.
• See how you did/changed

Whether you succeed or fail, you are now a protagonist in your very own story.

How does it feel?

Tell me about it in the comments below.

What is your Marathon? (How to be your own Mr. Miyagi)

Today, let us talk about marathons.
And discipline.
But, mostly marathons.
(Hint: it is a metaphor)

So I have taken up long distance running.
Again.
No accounting for it.
Mostly because I hate running.
Absolutely despise it.
With every fiber of my being.

Thing is, I am pretty good at it.
I wake up, I walk outside, start jogging, and a couple miles later I am back at my house.
Feeling great.
What happened?

Does this make me a runner?
Not exactly.
(Refer back to the hatred).

The real crux of the matter is I need something to do.
And running never seemed like something to do.
Barney Stinson said it the best:

"How to run a marathon. Step one you start running...there is no step two."

-Barney Stinson

And in all his glorious suit glory he is right.
You put on your running shoes and you just frigging do it.
Thing is there are actual steps to progress.
Barney pays for his hubris later in the episode with spontaneous muscle death:

Okay he doesn't, but it is a real thing:
Crossfit's Dirty Little Secret is the name of this blog post where apparently Rhabdomyolysis results from extreme physical exertion.
(not the subject of this post, just a fun tidbit/find on the interwebs)

So why did Barney fail?
Because he didn't train.
And that is a huge part of anything: receiving specialized/adequate training in order to accomplish your goals.

Now, here is my problem with running:
Running is training, it is not the end goal.
Why do we run?

• As a species it is more effective to chase our food than walk slowly behind it
• As a culture, it is one of the most common and easiest forms of exercise
• As a person, I run because reasons

And that was it for years...I had no guiding reason to run.

I ran because it was something to do.

I would have weeks, even months of consistent work outs.

And suddenly I would stop.

I think the biggest thing about it is because I saw it as the end result.

I confused the training with the marathon.

In truth, I have always dreamed of running marathons.

But, I couldn't see a clear way to do it.

So I just ran, instead of setting up a clear and easy training regimen to follow.

I think I picked it up in school.

I find schools/training vocations tend to start with the third point and sometimes get to the second.

So they will start by training learning artists and then give them reasonable expectations.

But, what about the big stuff?

Opening a theatre? Publishing like Neil Gaiman? Being happy?

Whatever happened to mentors and trainers?

Like Mr. Miyagi? King Kai? Obi-Wan?

As an artist I have searched for a mentor like them for most of my career and often came up short.

So here is a simple way to get started on kicking your ass the way Miyagi does:

1. Set a goal. Any goal. It doesn't even have to be a good one, just make it tangible. Run a marathon. Write a book. Paint a portrait. Illustrate a children's book. Whatever
2. Set realistic guide posts.  That daunting marathon is really big when you try to tackle it at once, so work towards it by setting simple, minor increases over a length of time. The best part? You get to decide how quickly you achieve your goal.
3. Start running. This is the training bit. This is often where people start and then try to work towards points one and two. If you are like me, starting here is the easiest and fastest way to burn out on a goal. 

Why does this work?

Because it is every single fight film you have ever seen:

1. Runt gets beat up by big bad guy and wants revenge. Sets goal to beat big bad guy.
2. Meets mentor willing to train him, who tells him he has a finite time in which to do it and it will be really, really, super, duper hard
3. Runt works really, really, really super duper hard and gets promoted to badass level by kicking bad guy in the teeth. (grudging respect/lifetime vendetta ensues)

Only through training are you able to reach a seemingly unattainable goal.

It is in every movie.

We all love training montages:

So why do we work so hard against them in real life?

I think that has to do with the fact that we don't set up something to train for.

And that makes a world of difference.

Having a goal/dream to fight for is the most essential key to starting your training.

If you have that, your Miyagi will show up.

It may just be you.

But, then again, it is always the protagonist who struggles.

You don't see Miyagi jumping in the ring when it gets tough, do you?

Juliet is a Psychopath (Or: How I got the Part)

This is my audition for Romeo & Juliet.
For one of the titular roles. Juliet.
No, really.
This is my headshot:

(I am willing to do nude)

Well here it is:
My audition for Romeo & Juliet (Juliet though).
Juliet is a beast. I mean it is her play, no doubt about it.
So where does the play start?
With a meek little ingenue sighing about love and shit.
Juliet? No. It's Romeo. (we'll get to him)

Scene One. Enter ME

Juliet is in another part of Verona. Away from the crying and the bitching.
Nurse calls me down and I'm like: "Who calls?" I know it is the Nurse, but she does not speak to me like that.
It's my mother.
She excuses the Nurse and then remembers she has no idea who I am.
Where am I coming from? Elsewhere, I had shit to do, probably curing the black plague or something. It's a slow Tuesday...no one died today.
So they tell me they want me to marry some pansy named Paris.
I say, "I'll look to like if looking liking move." I'm not gonna fall in love with someone I just met! (foreshadowing!)
(DESIGN: This whole scene I picture Juliet getting stripped down to nothing, basically naked in front of the audience, then we see her as either just a girl or a woman grown.
Then, they infantilize her by wrapping her in a party dress, swaddling her in fabric.)

Scene Next. Hashtag Party

So I have just been stuffed into this party dress, I head immediately downstairs and lo!
PRO-TIP:
(The first interaction between R&J happens in silence. Screw the whole sonnet, which is beautiful poetry, blah-blah, whatever. The first time they meet is in silence. How do I know this? Juliet and the rest are in MASKS. There is nothing so magical about a person in a mask that enchants a person at distance to start asking about them. Okay back to the action.)
A boy holding a torch!
(DESIGN: read up on torch carriers. It is the dumbest position...EVER. In most stories everyone gleans over this fact. Everyone has a torch guy. Prior to modern light there was someone who carried it wherever you went after dark. THAT is what Romeo volunteers for. If you do not highlight that he is being a little bitch, then the whole next scene is silly.)
Nope. A prince. Paris. A man's man. Paul Rudd in a space suit.

This really happened.
So we dance. And Romeo is mouth breathing on the side of the party staring at me.
It is my party! Everyone is here for me and I am killing it.
Then, the mouth breathing Romeo appears and steals a kiss.
First kiss, first impressions, first love.
Oh and this:

My only love sprung from my only hate! Too early seen unknown, and known too late! 

He is the son of my mortal enemy. So that sucks.

Scene After! The Balcony

PRO-TIP:
(There is not a single mention of a balcony in the entire play. Balconies weren't invented yet as mentioned in this fabulous article: The Balcony Scene in Romeo & Juliet is a Lie.)
Just going to leave this here:

Any other part belonging to a man.

(Hint: It's a penis)
So I am talking up how much I love Romeo and then someone whispers in the bushes.
Creepy. There are not words...nope. There is! RAPE!
I threaten to call the guards and lo, it is the boy I was just gushing about.
Awkward sauce.
So I get a proposal out of the deal and set up a time to do the deed.

Scene The Everything:

So we get the engagement.
I rush to Romeo whilst at prayer.
We get married and he kills my cousin Tybalt after the reception.
I curse him, curse Tybalt, curse myself.
Refuse Paris.
Go to the Friar, get the potion, drink the potion, fake death.
Piss off parents.
So far so good.

Scene Last: The Awful:

And then we wake up to the worst scene of ever.
I wake up in my wedding clothes.
To the Friar begging me to leave.
Surrounded by the bodies of my loved ones: Tybalt, Paris, and Romeo.
Romeo is dead in my arms.
(DESIGN: I see Romeo clutching Juliet to his chest. So she wakes in his arms. She is enclosed in the arms of her husband as the Friar tries to pry her out. Nest of death and contagion and all that)
I not only attempt to drink the poison from the cup, but his lips, and then fall on his dagger.
And I don't do it half-assed.
Oh no.
I die instantly so (DESIGN) stab between the ribs, through a lung, into the heart, and wrench it back out.
Insta-death.

And everyone else cries over me for a while and erects a golden statue in my honor.
Awesome

Character Building

Juliet is not whiny.
Too often have I seen Juliet played as a petulant child.
She does not cry without cause. She is willful and stubborn and just a little bit crazy.
You heard me. CRAZY.
The seed of R&J is not love, it is not conflict, it is not war. It is passion. Obsession.
For those who don't know the difference:
Love is what the Dalai Lama practices every day:

(You beautiful bastard)

Obsession is what you practice when you skulk underneath your ex-girlfriend's window:

(It is meant to be)

The subtleties may be lost on some, but they are there.
Romeo gets a bad rap for being fickle and changeable.

• He loves Rosaline completely
• He will never leave her
• He leaves her for Juliet
• The play happens

Juliet is just as changeable, just as bat shit as Romeo.

When she hears Romeo killed Tybalt she reacts like a person: 

Did ever a dragon keep so fair a cave?

Paraphrase: How could he? Why? He is so beautiful on and on and on.
Then the Nurse damns him. Effectively agreeing with Juliet.
How does Juliet respond?

Blistered be thy tongue for such a wish, he was not born to shame.

A big middle finger to the Nurse who is crying over her "best friend" (Tybalt) in the whole play!
When asked, Juliet says she has to side with her husband.
That is pretty strong loyalty for one who has known him for twelve hours.
How long?
You heard me.

Ah, poor my lord, what tongue shall smooth thy name, when I, thy three hours wife have mangled it? (emphasis not-Shakespeare's) 

They've known one another for a night and a day. Half a day.
(MATH: It was dark when the party starts. Assuming they meet right after the party and talk all night, it is nine when Romeo meets the Nurse , ten when she gets the tackled stair, eleven she talks with Juliet, noon when they are married, and three now...they've known one another all of twelve hours. Fifteen if I feel generous)

So Juliet sneaks Romeo into her private chambers and they manage to consummate this marriage.
Yeah, the same day that her new-found husband murders her cousin, Juliet has sex with him in the house they grew up in....classy.
So Romeo tries to leave and we get the lark scene.
Which, classically goes like this:

Actually that looks pretty good.
Except for the fact that Romeo is banished and will die in Verona starting TODAY.
So does Juliet help him with his clothes? Does she bid him adieu till they can meet up outside the city proper?
No. No, she quibbles about which bird is singing.
It is fucking DAY!
(DESIGN: make it day. Make it so clearly day that it physically hurts to do the lark scene. Because it physically hurts to do the lark scene. Trust me. Juliet is crazy. She is denying it is day and the harder she has to work the crazier she looks. Romeo will die if he stays. Let him die. He is committing suicide by staying).
And he does. He says he will die because he cannot bear to go (Pro-tip: watch the 1968 film, you will know why he stays).
What does Juliet do next? Asks him to promptly leave.
At this point Romeo wants to kill Juliet.

So her parents show up and tell her to marry someone else.
What does she do when prompted to remarry?
Go to the Friar and threaten to kill herself.
Now, I know all the cool kids are doing it (glances at Romeo), but for real though:
She pulls a knife on the Friar:

 Behold, twixt my extremes and me, this bloody knife shall play the umpire

 That is a real thing, she threatens him that if he cannot come up with a plan she will kill herself in front of him.
Boom.
Crazy pants.
In the tomb she finds out that her husband is dead and she attempts to kill herself no less than three times.
Three.
Think about the mental resolve to off yourself.

1. Try the cup...it's empty
2. Try the lips...no poison
3. Try the knife...that works!......ow

She is a monster. Searching for love in a world on the brink.
She grabs onto it like Woody Harrelson's character in Zombieland looking for Twinkies

Actually that would be a good summation of how I would play Juliet.

• Hungry
• Apocalyptic
• Craving
• Weirdly moving during that flashback with the dog

Cast me if you dare.