As promised, I personally took part in the No Experience Necessary Competition/Festival on Friday. And thank goodness for the prompt listed on the theatre website; I had not actually started work on the project until around 2 am. (Like I said, it's a good project for procrastinators.) But the prompt was open enough to allow a great deal of freedom, and yet specific enough to generate some really great ideas. So I developed the idea for the play in about half an hour and spent the rest of the time writing and working out the kinks.
Around 5 am, I submitted the play--shortly before passing out due to sleep deprivation. All things considered, I'm very pleased with the results. For those of you who have never experienced this feeling--and this was my first--as critical as we typically are of our own work, there is no comparison to seeing the words you've written, the characters you've created, coming to life on stage. Even if you think you've written crap, the actors and director make it wonderful. I really can't say enough about the director and actors; they really did a fantastic job putting something like this together, a quality production, and in such a short amount of time. They made my work seem like so much more than I thought it could be.
I'm told that there were six or so submissions for the competition, and three of them were chosen to be performed. It was really incredible to see what the other playwrights had come up with, how much different their works were than mine. Their talent was readily apparent, seeing it on stage. There was a small audience, but I feel they greatly enjoyed the event.
I sincerely hope that this becomes a regular event in the future, and that it grows little by little. If we can get this kind of talent from just the few who have submitted this year, who knows what dozens or hundreds of others can produce. It has been a wonderful opportunity for me to interact with other, very creative individuals and learn about a different art form. It was certainly worthwhile.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Westward Expansion
Last week I interviewed Jim Anderson from the Department of Mass Media, Communication, and Theatre in order to learn more information about his involvement in the Commerce Week on Writing. We discussed, among other things, the No Experience Necessary 24 hour Playwriting Competition and Festival. I mentioned previously what an incredible opportunity this would be--particularly for amateur playwrights who want to jump into this art with both feet--but I didn't realize how true this was until I participated in the competition myself. More on this to come.
Jim Anderson and I spoke for a long while about various concepts, primarily the art of playwriting and how it applied to the competition, but also about professors whom we were both familiar with and their merits, similar interests held by students in different departments, and how those interests often interact and coincide with each other.
This made me realize one very important thing: as we are now, as a university, we are too esoteric in our individual departments. We are quaratined from each other, only interested in our own localized enviornments, even if we often share a great many similarities with those in other fields of study. Once we become graduate students (the only experience I can honestly speak from), there seems to be a great deal of pressure for us to become more and more focused in our fields of study, rather than to continue exploring new areas--and god forbid, new buildings.
This, naturally, is not true of everyone; I've noticed a lot more interaction between faculty members and students from different departments than there has been in the past, and it pleases me to see this. To completely ignore what others are doing is detrimental to our academic research, as well as our overall campus enviornment. I am constantly surprised by how many people in other departments are working on the same sorts of projects or fields of study that I am; the obvious thing to do is to collaborate with them. And I only find out about these kindred spirits by getting out of the Hall of Languages when I can, interacting with other people that I'm not familiar with, finding out what interests them.
This is a very simple step toward broadening our horizons: if nothing else, just go to another building and hang out in their lobby for a while. See how people interact with each other, how it differs from what you're used to. I've spent the better part of last week in the Performing Arts Center, and without trying I've met several individuals who I can relate to on some level, people who I now consider good friends. After talking to them about the profound similarities in our interests and studies, I realized that I should've met these people a long time ago.
There's no reason to be partitioned off from people who we can collaborate with. I propose an assignment to anyone who reads this: make it a point, within the next week, to take some time and go to another building on campus. Then start talking to the people there. Find out something about them. You might be surprised by what you discover.
Jim Anderson and I spoke for a long while about various concepts, primarily the art of playwriting and how it applied to the competition, but also about professors whom we were both familiar with and their merits, similar interests held by students in different departments, and how those interests often interact and coincide with each other.
This made me realize one very important thing: as we are now, as a university, we are too esoteric in our individual departments. We are quaratined from each other, only interested in our own localized enviornments, even if we often share a great many similarities with those in other fields of study. Once we become graduate students (the only experience I can honestly speak from), there seems to be a great deal of pressure for us to become more and more focused in our fields of study, rather than to continue exploring new areas--and god forbid, new buildings.
This, naturally, is not true of everyone; I've noticed a lot more interaction between faculty members and students from different departments than there has been in the past, and it pleases me to see this. To completely ignore what others are doing is detrimental to our academic research, as well as our overall campus enviornment. I am constantly surprised by how many people in other departments are working on the same sorts of projects or fields of study that I am; the obvious thing to do is to collaborate with them. And I only find out about these kindred spirits by getting out of the Hall of Languages when I can, interacting with other people that I'm not familiar with, finding out what interests them.
This is a very simple step toward broadening our horizons: if nothing else, just go to another building and hang out in their lobby for a while. See how people interact with each other, how it differs from what you're used to. I've spent the better part of last week in the Performing Arts Center, and without trying I've met several individuals who I can relate to on some level, people who I now consider good friends. After talking to them about the profound similarities in our interests and studies, I realized that I should've met these people a long time ago.
There's no reason to be partitioned off from people who we can collaborate with. I propose an assignment to anyone who reads this: make it a point, within the next week, to take some time and go to another building on campus. Then start talking to the people there. Find out something about them. You might be surprised by what you discover.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
"The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft agley"
In celebration of creative writing, Jim Anderson and the theatre department are offering a one hour workshop on the basics and format of playwriting here at Texas A&M University Commerce. This is part of a competition known as the No Experience Necessary 24 Hour Short Play Competition and Festival, a very unique idea of coming up with an idea for an 8-10 minute play and writing it for submission the very next day.
I think that this is a wonderful opportunity for individuals who may not have much experience in playwriting to get their creative works out to the public very quickly and with more focus on creative spontaneity than over-preparation. As a sometimes-serious fiction writer, I know how difficult it is sometimes to develop a very elaborate idea over the course of several months or years and how much preparation is required for such a feat. Sometimes my best work comes from pressure to get something written by the very next day; it is often the motivation I need to get creative.
Also, this program allows people who may not be familiar with playwriting and who would otherwise feel put off by such a specific genre to be briefly introduced to it and very quickly get involved in it on a very creative level. As is suggested by the title, no experience is necessary to develop something creative and worthwhile, and a project such as this will likely produce a great deal of different sorts of plays from people who otherwise would not even consider writing for such a medium.
Over these 24 hours, there will be plenty of guidance. Participants may attend an optional 1 hour workshop on playwriting in PAC 100 at 4:30 pm, Thursday October 22. Afterward, at 5:00 pm, participants may go to the Theatre Department website to obtain a prompt and instructions, and they will write an 8-10 minute play based on this prompt. Plays should be submitted no later than 10:00 am on Friday, October 23, to Jim_Anderson@TAMU-Commerce.edu , a short enough time to put plenty of pressure on writers to get their works in, again, something that I encourage, as a procrastinator. The committee that will look at these drafts includes Jim Anderson, Dr. John Hanners, and award-winning playwright Gary Burton, who I've had the good fortune of taking a theatre course from. As a side note, if you ever have the chance to see Doorknobs, a play written by Gary Burton, please do so; it was hands-down the best play that I had seen that year, and well-worth your time. Gary's an excellent playwright.
Once the top 5 plays are selected, playwrights will be invited to attend rehearsals at 3:00 pm on October 23. At 5:00, doors open for festival. This quick process should be an excellent experience for those who either procrastinate too much or have little to no experience with playwriting. John Waters once said that a great exercise for film students is to read a story in the newspaper, make a film based on it that day, and release the film the very next day. While he was speaking primarily of the film being based on a concept that had only entered the consciousness of the audience very recently, the same concept could apply to these potential playwrights. Think about a potential concept, recent or otherwise, write a play based on it, and submit it for rehearsals the very next day; since it only recently entered your consciousness, it will be new and fresh, and generally more potent. If I have the opportunity to do so, I will enter this contest myself, and I encourage anyone else to do the same.
I think that this is a wonderful opportunity for individuals who may not have much experience in playwriting to get their creative works out to the public very quickly and with more focus on creative spontaneity than over-preparation. As a sometimes-serious fiction writer, I know how difficult it is sometimes to develop a very elaborate idea over the course of several months or years and how much preparation is required for such a feat. Sometimes my best work comes from pressure to get something written by the very next day; it is often the motivation I need to get creative.
Also, this program allows people who may not be familiar with playwriting and who would otherwise feel put off by such a specific genre to be briefly introduced to it and very quickly get involved in it on a very creative level. As is suggested by the title, no experience is necessary to develop something creative and worthwhile, and a project such as this will likely produce a great deal of different sorts of plays from people who otherwise would not even consider writing for such a medium.
Over these 24 hours, there will be plenty of guidance. Participants may attend an optional 1 hour workshop on playwriting in PAC 100 at 4:30 pm, Thursday October 22. Afterward, at 5:00 pm, participants may go to the Theatre Department website to obtain a prompt and instructions, and they will write an 8-10 minute play based on this prompt. Plays should be submitted no later than 10:00 am on Friday, October 23, to Jim_Anderson@TAMU-Commerce.edu , a short enough time to put plenty of pressure on writers to get their works in, again, something that I encourage, as a procrastinator. The committee that will look at these drafts includes Jim Anderson, Dr. John Hanners, and award-winning playwright Gary Burton, who I've had the good fortune of taking a theatre course from. As a side note, if you ever have the chance to see Doorknobs, a play written by Gary Burton, please do so; it was hands-down the best play that I had seen that year, and well-worth your time. Gary's an excellent playwright.
Once the top 5 plays are selected, playwrights will be invited to attend rehearsals at 3:00 pm on October 23. At 5:00, doors open for festival. This quick process should be an excellent experience for those who either procrastinate too much or have little to no experience with playwriting. John Waters once said that a great exercise for film students is to read a story in the newspaper, make a film based on it that day, and release the film the very next day. While he was speaking primarily of the film being based on a concept that had only entered the consciousness of the audience very recently, the same concept could apply to these potential playwrights. Think about a potential concept, recent or otherwise, write a play based on it, and submit it for rehearsals the very next day; since it only recently entered your consciousness, it will be new and fresh, and generally more potent. If I have the opportunity to do so, I will enter this contest myself, and I encourage anyone else to do the same.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Who is a Writer?
Before You Read:
Do you consider yourself a writer? Why or why not?
What forms of writing do you use in your everyday life?
How do you feel that writing professionally differs from other forms of writing, if at all?
After You Read:
Has your opinion of what writing is changed after watching this video? In what way?
Can you relate to any of the interviewees and their opinions (for better or worse) on writing? Use specific examples.
Do you disagree with any of the interviewees’ views on writing? Explain why.
Do you consider yourself a writer? Why or why not?
What forms of writing do you use in your everyday life?
How do you feel that writing professionally differs from other forms of writing, if at all?
After You Read:
Has your opinion of what writing is changed after watching this video? In what way?
Can you relate to any of the interviewees and their opinions (for better or worse) on writing? Use specific examples.
Do you disagree with any of the interviewees’ views on writing? Explain why.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Didn't You Get the Memo?
Chapter 5 of Elements of Literacy primarily focuses on literacy in the workplace, what sorts of literary practices would be required in a particular work environment, and how this literacy effects the economy as a whole. It makes use of various films quite effectively to illustrate the evolution of business as we have entered the information age.
Certainly, acknowledging these films, such as Office Space and The Secret of My Success, and the ways in which they represent corporate life and evolution has its merits, considering film is ever a representation of the times, our lives, and our culture, whether intentionally or not. But, I think Lindquist and Seitz misinterpret certain aspects of these films and don't bother to elaborate on others.
For example, they point out that Office Space effectively satirizes the information exchange within the corporate structure by pointing out the folly of memos when compared to natural human error: the fact that Peter has to endure chastising from eight different bosses when he accidentally forgets to put an arbitrary cover sheet on his TPS reports. However, Lindquist and Seitz seem to argue that The Secret of My Success is somehow antithetical in its treatment of satire of corporate structure to Office Space, drawing a contrast to the theme of the film and painting its protagonist as some sort of hero.
Sure, Brantley learns how to circumvent the system and gain success for himself as well as his company, but the methods by which he does so suggest that the film is also a satire that makes an important point on the futility of the corporate system. Lindquist and Seitz point out that Brantley notices a significant problem with the convoluted and largely impersonal memo system that the company has in place, and that by exploiting this system, he is able to resolve the issue to "save the company." Well, isn't the fact that the literacy of the broken memo system caused the problem in the first place a comment on how preposterous the system is? Doesn't the fact that Brantley had to resort to subversive means to get into a position to make a difference suggest that a larger problem with this literacy system, and therefore satirizes it to prove that anyone can succeed if they exploit such problems?
Also, Lindquist and Seitz seem to suggest that Brantley was able to climb the corporate ladder exclusively due to his knowledge of the memo system working as a mail boy, but they gloss over the fact that at least part of his knowledge--his literacy--came from his boss's wife, who he had an affair with.
Also, Deborah Brandt's study in literacy is mentioned in a significant portion of this chapter, and being an important, thorough, and effective literacy scholar, I can understand why. But this is such a significant chunk of the text that I have to wonder why Deborah Brandt didn't just write this chapter herself. True, she gives plenty of vital information, but surely there is another side to this issue? Surely there are other studies that have offered different perspectives on literacy in the workplace? Why are none of them represented here, if nothing else, for the sake of thoroughness? Presenting only one side of an argument is little better than presenting Brandt's study as a whole with no additional dialogue from Lindquist or Seitz.
Though the problem of effective business communication is represented here via several examples of significant issues and satires, no real solution seems to be offered.
However, speaking of literacy promotion during such historical periods as WWII reminded me a bit of my experience during high school. It was normal for an army or navy recruiter to come visit our class about once or twice a year. However, very shortly after September 11, they came to our class on an almost biweekly basis. The recruiters often emphasized the future job opportunities available through their programs, specifically the various college degrees that were sponsored. They offered to pay for a significant portion of a student's college tuition in a wide variety of subjects and degrees, provided they joined the armed forces. And they also made sure to point out that combat was far from the only field in which they were looking to fill the ranks. It was an interesting concept, offering a college education in exchange for service, and in a lot of ways it seemed to promote literacy in a time in which literacy was extremely important.
Certainly, acknowledging these films, such as Office Space and The Secret of My Success, and the ways in which they represent corporate life and evolution has its merits, considering film is ever a representation of the times, our lives, and our culture, whether intentionally or not. But, I think Lindquist and Seitz misinterpret certain aspects of these films and don't bother to elaborate on others.
For example, they point out that Office Space effectively satirizes the information exchange within the corporate structure by pointing out the folly of memos when compared to natural human error: the fact that Peter has to endure chastising from eight different bosses when he accidentally forgets to put an arbitrary cover sheet on his TPS reports. However, Lindquist and Seitz seem to argue that The Secret of My Success is somehow antithetical in its treatment of satire of corporate structure to Office Space, drawing a contrast to the theme of the film and painting its protagonist as some sort of hero.
Sure, Brantley learns how to circumvent the system and gain success for himself as well as his company, but the methods by which he does so suggest that the film is also a satire that makes an important point on the futility of the corporate system. Lindquist and Seitz point out that Brantley notices a significant problem with the convoluted and largely impersonal memo system that the company has in place, and that by exploiting this system, he is able to resolve the issue to "save the company." Well, isn't the fact that the literacy of the broken memo system caused the problem in the first place a comment on how preposterous the system is? Doesn't the fact that Brantley had to resort to subversive means to get into a position to make a difference suggest that a larger problem with this literacy system, and therefore satirizes it to prove that anyone can succeed if they exploit such problems?
Also, Lindquist and Seitz seem to suggest that Brantley was able to climb the corporate ladder exclusively due to his knowledge of the memo system working as a mail boy, but they gloss over the fact that at least part of his knowledge--his literacy--came from his boss's wife, who he had an affair with.
Also, Deborah Brandt's study in literacy is mentioned in a significant portion of this chapter, and being an important, thorough, and effective literacy scholar, I can understand why. But this is such a significant chunk of the text that I have to wonder why Deborah Brandt didn't just write this chapter herself. True, she gives plenty of vital information, but surely there is another side to this issue? Surely there are other studies that have offered different perspectives on literacy in the workplace? Why are none of them represented here, if nothing else, for the sake of thoroughness? Presenting only one side of an argument is little better than presenting Brandt's study as a whole with no additional dialogue from Lindquist or Seitz.
Though the problem of effective business communication is represented here via several examples of significant issues and satires, no real solution seems to be offered.
However, speaking of literacy promotion during such historical periods as WWII reminded me a bit of my experience during high school. It was normal for an army or navy recruiter to come visit our class about once or twice a year. However, very shortly after September 11, they came to our class on an almost biweekly basis. The recruiters often emphasized the future job opportunities available through their programs, specifically the various college degrees that were sponsored. They offered to pay for a significant portion of a student's college tuition in a wide variety of subjects and degrees, provided they joined the armed forces. And they also made sure to point out that combat was far from the only field in which they were looking to fill the ranks. It was an interesting concept, offering a college education in exchange for service, and in a lot of ways it seemed to promote literacy in a time in which literacy was extremely important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
