Friday, July 31, 2009

Zen and the Art of Writing

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig’s motorcycle was not the newest and best and he did not have training as a mechanic. But despite the obstacles Pirsig rode his motorcycle across the country.
"Not everyone understands what a completely rational process this is, this maintenance of a motorcycle. They think it's some kind of a "knack" or some kind of "affinity for machines" in operation. They are right, but the knack is almost purely a process of reason, and most of the troubles are caused by what old time radio men called a "short between the earphones," failures to use the head properly. A motorcycle functions entirely in accordance with the laws of reason, and a study of the art of motorcycle maintenance is really a miniature study of the art of rationality itself."
Pirsig’s technique was a practiced use of reason, and his technique was honed by the road itself.

Could the same process which carried Pirsig’s motorcycle across the country create a writer?

Image: filtran

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Could Your Creative Work Be The Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread?

Creativity can be a valuable commodity.

In 1912, a man named Otto Frederick Rohwedder of Davenport, Iowa invented a machine capable of slicing an entire loaf of bread in one motion. Fire destroyed Rohwedder’s workshop and this machine, and a second slicer wasn’t built until 1928.

But did the history of bread then change in 1928? Not really. The slicing machines were not an immediate hit. The sliced loaves looked sloppy and went stale quicker. Gustav Papendick of St. Louis perfected the machine so the bread would be more neat and orderly, packed quickly in wax paper to avoid some of the staleness. But bakers doubted consumers would put up with bread that goes stale quickly, just so they wouldn’t have to slice it, and bakeries were not quick to order the extra equipment.

But in 1930 Wonder took presliced bread national and it went on to become a touchstone for “greatest things.”

Who do you think profited more financially from the invention, Rohwedder or Wonder?

Back in 1912 Rohwedder must not have realized what he had or it wouldn’t have taken him 16 years to build another. Evidently, in 1928 the baking industry didn’t recognize the machine’s potential either.

Wonder was the company who took the ball and ran with it.

In fact, several of the world’s most wealthy companies have built their fortunes upon the shoulders of others. Starbuck’s did not invent the latte but they capitalized on the idea, perhaps more successfully than anyone so far. Ray Kroc did not invent the hamburger, the way McDonald’s produces them, or the idea of hamburger franchises but he has profited more from these ideas than the McDonald’s brothers themselves. Bill Gates didn’t invent the DOS operating system or the idea of a GUI or graphic user interface (Microsoft Windows is a GUI) yet because of these two things Gates is among the richest men in the world.

But on the other hand . . .

Patrick Dennis’s Auntie Mame, based on the antics of his own “colorful” aunt, was rejected by 15 publishers before it not only became a Broadway hit but a popular film. In 1956 Dennis was the first author in history to have three books simultaneously on The New York Times bestseller list.

Jonathan Livingston Seagull author Richard Bach received 18 rejection letters before the book was published and Bach sold more than a million copies.

Chicken Soup for the Soul by Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen, flagship book to the 65-title series which has sold more than 80 million copies in 37 languages, received 140 rejections.

Before a publisher took a chance on James Joyce, the young writer received 22 rejections. Only 1250 copies of Dubliners were initially published, and of the 379 copies which sold the first year, young James purchased 120. Subsequently, Joyce became regarded as one of the most influential 20th century writers.

Robert Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance was turned down 121 times and a novel by Richard Hooker called M*A*S*H was rejected by 21 publishers. Both have since made their creators wealthy.

Tabitha King rescued a manuscript from the trash, one for a novel about a tormented girl with telekinetic powers. Her husband had already received 30 rejections from publishers. But after it went around again, and was eventually published, Carrie became a classic in the horror genre and catapulted author Stephen King to success.

Margaret Mitchell’s Gone With the Wind, Madeleine L’Engle’s A Wrinkle in Time, and Frank Herbert’s Dune all received rejections far into the double digits, yet each has become a household name.

Who will benefit from your next great idea? Will you listen to naysayers, or perhaps your own inner critic, and leave someone else to benefit from your creative work? Or will you remain tenacious?

Your creative work could be the next "greatest thing since sliced bread."

Photo: jaqian

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Goldilocks and the Three Personal Development Gurus

Once upon a time there was an up-and-coming performance artiste named Goldilocks.

One bright morning Goldilocks ventured into the deep dark woods to seek creative inspiration. She felt her work had lost its edge and her follower count on Twitter had plummeted.

Just when the hot afternoon sun started making her tired, Goldilocks came across a cottage with a large sign hung over the door. It read "Personal Development Gurus." So after briefly contemplating what the plural spelling of "guru" might actually be, she knocked.

Nobody answered the door.

"I am very sleepy," she thought. "I'm sure nobody will mind if I wait inside. Perhaps I could take a nap while I wait."

Inside the cottage there were three of nearly everything. One big, one medium-sized, and one small version.

"How odd," she said feeling perfectly comfortable in her sense of self, yet being totally open to the idea of different-ness.

Although she realized this could be interpreted as buying into society's belief that "bigger is better," Goldilocks was so very tired and decided to take a rest in the biggest of the three chairs.

As soon as Goldilocks sat down loud music and a voice blasted over a loudspeaker.

"Get on your feet!" the speaker boomed. "Put some lotion in your motion and GO, GO, GO, GO!"

She jumped up from the chair, her heart racing.

"Oh my goodness!" she cried. "That's the biggest bunch of hype and hoopla I ever did hear!"

Goldilocks sat on the middle-sized chair to catch her breath. Nothing happened. As a matter of fact, it was so quiet she could hear crickets chirping outside. Her mind wandered and soon she forgot why she had even set out into the forest in the first place.

The third chair was smaller than the rest but Goldilocks wanted to prove she did not harbor prejudices against persons of smaller stature, so she felt obligated to give it a sit.

"Hmm," she said. "The seat is pretty comfortable. Not too hard, but not too soft either."

Just then a pillow appeared on the back of the chair. She rested her head against it. Next an ottoman appeared from nowhere. She put her feet up on it. Right after that, a classic self-help book by a trusted author appeared on a stand beside the chair, along with a glass of champagne.

"Now this chair knows how to treat a lady!" she said. And she guzzled the glass of champagne right down.

Goldilocks read from the self-help book until late in the afternoon. Although she had realized several personal insights, Goldilocks remembered hadn't had a bite to eat all day.

"I am so very hungry," she said.

So Goldilocks ventured into the kitchen to find herself something to eat.

Now the champagne had made her a little tipsy so she didn't trust her eyes at first, but across the kitchen there appeared to be a table with three steaming bowls of soup.

Goldilocks made a beeline for the largest bowl and peered down inside. It was alphabet soup. Not only that, but the letters seemed to be spelling out some message.

She read, "You're okay and I'm okay. You're special just like you are. Sign up for our Love Yourself Retreat today and we'll double your crackers back and throw in a bonus spoon."

Goldilocks pushed the bowl away in disgust.

"If that isn't the biggest crock of cliches I ever did see!" she exclaimed.

Goldilocks looked into the second bowl. It had a message too, but it lacked a concrete plan with actionable steps.

"I just don't know what you want me to do," she said and moved on to the smaller bowl.

"Wouldn't you like some nice warm soup?" read the letters in the third bowl.

"Why, yes. Yes I believe I would," Goldilocks said. Then she ate the soup right down, realizing of course that comfort food wasn't the answer to her problems but feeling a need to just be present with her inner self.

Still a little drunk from the champagne and pleasingly full of delicious soup, Goldilocks ventured upstairs to take a little nap.

Goldilocks opened the bedroom door. The room contained three beds, one big, one middle-sized, and one small.

"My momma didn't raise no dummy," she said. "I ain't gonna go through all that rigmarole again."

And with that Goldilocks dove onto the smallest bed and had herself a nice little nap.

When the personal development gurus arrived home, Goldilocks was surprised to see they were three bears, one was big, one medium-sided, and one small. Feeling intense guilt over her species-centric assumptions and wishing to honor the contribution every person being can make toward enriching our general life experiences, Goldilocks hired all three to coach her.

When Goldilocks returned home she felt a new sense of self and purpose. She created a new performance piece and was invited to present it on the Oprah show. The number of people following her on Twitter increased dramatically, so of course she lived happily ever after.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Life and Blogging Without Regrets

In the song "Beautiful Boy" John Lennon wrote:
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.

In a recent comment Count Sneaky wrote:
. . . life is so time-consuming.

Some people say you shouldn't apologize when you've been away from your blog, unexplained. I'm not sure why, maybe it's some sort of "no regrets" blogging philosophy.

But I am sorry to have been away so long without telling you why. Life had other plans, but I won't bore you with too many details. Suffice it to say my dad passed away a month ago after a two-year cancer battle and my Master's thesis had to be completed by the end of June, so I really didn't feel much like blogging. However, I did spend a lot of time playing Farmtown on Facebook.

Oh sure, I posted some "articles" . . . things I had to write anyway for school, but that isn't the same thing. For the most part my blogging life sat on the shelf, then I realized something interesting.

Emma Newman contacted me the other day. She remembered I had mentioned some difficult times and wondered if I was doing okay. That might not sound too interesting, but let me put this into context: I've never met Emma and had only exchanged a few blog comments with her. She was just being human and wondered how another human happened to be doing.

Who says the Internet is anonymous? Several of the other great people who know me through blogging have continued to stop by and leave comments even though my posts have been less than regular.

That's when I decided to reject the "no regrets" thing. Would you suddenly stop interacting with your brick-and-mortar friends without some explanation? Of course not, if you value their friendships. If you value those who frequent your blog, isn't it the same thing? If it isn't, then perhaps it really is all about statistics anyway.

I suppose appreciating the value of those who come across your path is the real way to living a life without regrets. Someone said:
Some people come into our lives and quickly go. Some stay for awhile and leave footprints on our hearts, and we are never the same.

Photo: Gregor D..

Monday, July 6, 2009

Cinematic Narration and Shakespeare’s Plays

Many of the limitations William Shakespeare faced in the technical facilities of the Elizabethan stage are answered in the nature and abilities of modern film. Where Shakespeare seemed to yearn for a way to express the true colors of his vision through words, film offers a ready palette and the ability to "show" what Shakespeare could only "tell." Shakespeare's theater, with its lack of technical resources, painted verbal pictures of battlefields and fantastical places, scenes and exchanges in a span of places from the underworld to the heavens, and snapshots of a character's inner thoughts and feelings, entirely through words. By its nature and technical abilities film has a broader visual vocabulary available to it than Shakespeare's theater could ever access.

In Henry V the chorus laments the limitations of Shakespeare's Elizabethan stage:
. . . Can this cock-pit hold
The vasty fields of France? Or may we cram,
Within this wooden O, the very casques,
That did affright the air at Agincourt?
O, pardon! Since a crooked figure may
Attest, in little place, a million;
And let us, ciphers to this great accompt,
On your imaginary forces work.

In director and actor Kenneth Branagh's 1989 film adaptation of Henry V, which earned him an Oscar nomination for Best Director, preeminent British classical actor of the first post-Olivier generation, Derek Jacobi spoke these words of the chorus' prologue from the backstage of a modern theater. Jacobi's speech ended on the stage, where the play's opening scene is expected to begin. However this scene is not in fact filmed on a stage, but on a 15th Century battlefield. By filming the opening sequence in this manner, Branagh both acknowledges and shatters the limitations Shakespeare faced on his Elizabethan stage, and opens a door for the cinematic narrator to offer its unique and virtually unlimited contribution to the production.

In a similar manner, Branagh's 2006 adaptation of Shakespeare's As You Like It takes us behind the scenes of its actual filming when Rosalind (played by Bryce Dallas Howard) delivers the play's epilogue among the actors' trailers and the general hubbub of the crew. Film's ability to break the fourth wall opens new realms for the cinematic narrator, bringing an intimacy between actor, filmmaker, and audience which Shakespeare could only experience in his dreams. This intimacy introduces the other end of a spectrum available to the cinematic narrator, ranging from spectacle to minute detail, and outlines its possible contribution to the filming of Shakespeare's plays.

But the modern cinematic narrator's contribution to the filming of Shakespeare's plays is not merely technical. The cinematic voice is the product of its own day and age just as much as the voice of Shakespeare. In "Shakespeare and the Cinema," Russell Jackson, Professor of Shakespeare Studies at the University of Birmingham and Director of the Shakespeare Institute, Stratford-upon-Avon, observes:
To an extent, the history of Shakespearian film-making is one of variations on this theme: shifting attitudes to the Shakespearian source material, varied objectives, and changing techniques.

So the adaptation of Shakespeare to film serves the needs of both play and filmmaker, and the cinematic narration developed for each individual film will be dictated by the attitudes, objectives and techniques applied to the material.

The Shakespearean canon offers a nearly comprehensive palette of human emotion and experience with ready-made scenarios to match each filmmaker's objective. However, public opinion about the individual plays continues to change. The play As You Like It, although neglected in performance for more than a century after Shakespeare's death in 1616, has been a popular play on the stage ever since. Although The Taming of the Shrew remains one of Shakespeare's most frequently performed comedies, interpretation of the play's commentary about women changes with the times. While few would dispute the numerous merits of The Merchant of Venice, its anti-Semitic themes have caused the work to fall out of fashion at times when these themes could not be readily justified. Attitudes about Shakespeare himself continue to change throughout the years; while he is often hailed as a great genius who has made numerous contributions to the English language as well as our overall understanding of humanity and the individual, at other times even his existence has been called into question and William Shakespeare has been thought to be the compiled penname for several writers of the Elizabethan stage.

In an interview for his 2006 film adaptation of As You Like It, director Kenneth Branagh spoke of his objectives for filming Shakespeare:
I felt as though I was watching Shakespeare across the generations and in a new medium - - sort of waving the flag and saying, We're not telling you this is better than anything you'll ever see but we think it's wonderful.

By nature of its creative flexibility, film opens the door to radical objectives and the use of distinctive narrative voices. Director Baz Luhrmann's 1996 adaptation of Romeo and Juliet sought to update the play with a radical approach intended to appeal to a broad audience. However, it may be argued this adaptation pales in comparison to Franco Zeffirelli's unforgettable 1968 film, which handled the material in a more traditional manner and is now considered a film classic. Addressing this capacity, and perhaps implying some restraint should be exercised in its use, Kenneth Branagh said:
When you make a film of a subject that existed in another medium - particularly in the theatre, where it's worked as a play for four hundred years - I think one is obliged to consider what the cinema can do to reveal the story of the play that the theatre can't do in the same way. I'm not suggesting one is better than the other, but simply, what can the medium do? Why do it in the cinema?

While the quality and influence of Shakespeare's plays may be a common reason they are adapted into film, these works have also been used as vehicles for promoting and preserving the work of individual actors. Sir Laurence Olivier's film performances of Shakespeare, which include King Lear (1983), Henry V (1944), Hamlet (1948), As You Like It (1936), Richard III (1955), and The Merchant of Venice (1973) are currently valued more for their preservation of work by such a legendary actor than their other cinematic merits.

It could be said Shakespeare's plays lend themselves to screen adaptation more readily than scripts from modern theater. A modern play frequently must be "opened up" so the visual narrative of film may be more fully applied, even though this process of opening is likely to superimpose new ideas onto the original play. Where modern theater seems to have been influenced by cinema and television, presenting dialogue virtually void of descriptive language, the plays of William Shakespeare give us language rich in narrative. With Shakespeare's plays the material for cinematic narration is often readily available in the existing text and may simply be translated into an artistic and effective visual representation. Coupled with modern cinema's technical capacities, the wealth of description present in much of Shakespeare's work may be more fully appreciated and realized than could ever have been possible on the Elizabethan stage.

But for all the literary and descriptive quality of Shakespeare's plays, they may be more effective as film when careful consideration is given to the development of an appropriate cinematic narrator and that narrator is given a clear voice in the film's execution. The plays have been filmed countless times and with varied amounts of cinematic intervention. On the one hand we have extreme makeovers such as the 1999 film Ten Things I Hate About You, based on Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew but set in a modern high school and rewritten in prose. Franco Zeffirelli's film version of Romeo and Juliet stayed much closer to the original, both the text and the setting. Both films can claim success on very different levels, but they share the benefit of a strong directorial vision translated into a distinctive style and use of cinematic narration. Russell Jackson said:
Films based on Shakespeare's plays are best considered in terms of their vision - that is, the imaginary world they create, and the way of seeing it that they offer the viewer rather than the degree of their faithfulness to a Shakespearean original.

One of the most obvious characteristics in any of Shakespeare's plays is his use of language, and in particular his use of blank verse. Actors on the Elizabethan stage did not enjoy the benefits of electronic amplification, so clarity was a major concern of any playwright when assigning words to an actor. Like other playwrights of his day, Shakespeare employed the use of iambic pentameter when constructing his lines. Iambic pentameter depends on an oral rhythm which approximates natural speech but almost magically makes it easier for an audience to hear and understand. Each line contains a series of alternating weak and strong stresses on its words. The combination of one weak and one strong syllable creates what is called a foot, and each line contains five such feet. Built upon iambic pentameter, blank verse was a helpful tool for the Elizabethan stage, but not an obvious one for modern film. Consequently, many filmmakers place little importance on their actors' use of these elements in the blank verse even though Shakespeare's use of iambic pentameter often carries instruction to the actors and hints about his intended meanings. A modern filmmaker may decide to ignore how and why Shakespeare used blank verse, but he does so at his own peril and his final interpretation of the work might suffer.

Antony's famous speech from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is written in blank verse. In general, when a Shakespearean actor comes across a line which seems to have more or less than five feet, it is likely an adjustment should be made in pronunciation. For example, in Antony's speech, the word "ambitious" is pronounced with four syllables and not three like we generally use today. The word "interred" is meant to contain three syllables as well, indicated by the number of feet in the line. But if you allow the form to flow, without fighting the rhythms, not only is it easier to hear the lines, but you begin to hear Shakespeare's own acting directions, like which word is stressed and therefore important; often the stresses in a line can change or at least clarify the meaning. The stress given to the word "ambitious" throughout the speech, both by the number of syllables and the frequency of repetition, is underscored by the rhythm. We see this is a speech about ambition, but not necessarily about the ambition of Caesar. Because it is stressed, and repeated, then followed by "Yet Brutus is an honorable man" we get the idea Antony might actually be saying Brutus was the ambitious one, and not Caesar.

Another obvious characteristic of Shakespeare's language is its descriptive qualities. Because the Elizabethan stage did not use more than the most minimal bits of scenery to depict location and time of day, playwrights alluded to such details through the dialogue. Dialogue was also used to describe events which might be difficult to depict on the stage, or to relay information which the characters on stage might not otherwise be privy to. Because film carries such a wide range of possibilities, anything from voiceovers and flashbacks to quick editing and the ability to bring any time or feeling into the scene, Shakespeare's allusions within the text, although they are often beautiful, may easily be handed off to the cinematic narrator's duties. What remains next is for the filmmaker to decide if this descriptive dialogue is necessary, or if it becomes redundant when these things can be shown in other ways.

Aside from a lack of scenery, the Elizabethan stage's use of costuming was minimal as well and actors generally wore "modern dress" whether the play took place in Elizabethan England or ancient Rome. Modern film actors are usually dressed in costumes accurate to the story's time and culture, again reducing the need for descriptive language which identifies a play's locale. Modern filmmakers often stray from the setting Shakespeare intended for his plays, adding yet another discretionary element to the director's plate and another instance where the original language might best be cut. Director Michael Hoffman's 1999 film adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream changes the location from Greece to Italy and moves the time a few hundred years from its original era. Kenneth Branagh's As You Like It sets the tale in a British enclave of feudal Japan.

It is impossible to know how Shakespeare himself might approach the filming of his plays if he were alive today, of course. Freed from the constraints of his Elizabethan stage, we can only guess what the Bard of Avon might have given us. Perhaps he would have left out much of the descriptive sections within his plays, or maybe he would retain them for their poetic contributions. Of course Shakespeare would realize an almost unlimited palette of times and locations for his plays, but perhaps he would have rejected their importance and focused even more on the interactions between characters. Or perhaps Shakespeare would have transferred a portion of his writing from the pen to the camera, using each tool for its inherent strengths and understanding their weaknesses. What we do know is the cinematic narration in a modern film may be used to enhance what we already have in Shakespeare's plays, the only challenge comes in knowing where and how much of the focus to give that narrator.

Works cited.

Braudy, Leo and Marshall Cohen. "Film Narrative and the Other Arts." Film Theory & Criticism. Ed. Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. 341-344.

Jackson, Russell. "Shakespeare and the Cinema." The Cambridge Companion To Shakespeare. Ed. Margreta de Grazia and Stanley Wells. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 217-233.

"Lawrence Olivier." IMDb: The Internet Movie Database. IMDb.com, 1990-2009. 05 July, 2009. < http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000059/>

"Online Exclusive With Kenneth Branagh." HBO Films. HBO Films, 2006. 05 July, 2009. < http://www.hbo.com/films/asyoulikeit/interviews/>

Shakespeare, William. "Henry V." The Globe Illustrated Shakespeare. Ed. Howard Staunton. New York: Greenwich House, 1979.