Bunched Panties: "You're Not Gonna Read It, So I Might As Well Say It"
- Thread starter benorbeen
- Start date
<b>DC > CC > CD > DD</b>
It was a neat rehearsal last night. I had been struggling with a theory of edits in long-form improv games over this past week and I think I'm much closer.
Last night, I introduced the strategy for playing a Chicken game, i.e., what essentially to do in your long-form improv scene.
Here it is:
Strategy #1 is what you should employ to go about getting what your character wants. If the other player doesn't concede on her own, you try to get concessions from her so that you get what your character wants (Strategy #2).
The first two strategies involve concessions. When concessions aren't being evenly doled out, you move into the last two strategies, which involve standing firm.
Strategy #3 is the threat. It is the "You better give me this else I'm going to make this game very difficult for you to play" move. It is a firm stance rather than a concession. It is a move to get a concession from the other player, who seems to be hardcore standing firm.
Strategy #4 is about promoting deadlock, which is the worst outcome in long-form improv. It involves both players' standing firm. Essentially, when you play this, you not only are making the scene impossible to play, but also the other player has been impossible in conceding. If you've conceded already in the game, there's less reason for you to when the other player has not. So, you say essentially, "Fuck you for not conceding when I conceded already to you. I'm going to wait here until you concede (or do whatever it takes to put this game in deadlock)."
I was doing research after rehearsal in listening to The Second City CDs I have, measuring the initiations, concessions, firm stances, and deadlock, then where the scenes were edited. I was being less picky about mapping the concessions, and more general--in essence, I was only plotting the concessions and firm stances when a player's strategy changed from one tactic to the other. Fascinating. There's less hard formula for determining when to edit a scene, but there's a lot more to coach with now as a result of these findings (which I don't want to share here). It's almost formulaic, but not quite. More like a formula with some nice exceptions. Maybe I could make a formula that accounts for those exceptions, too? (Actually, I would love to do that!)
Wanted to share. It's still such an amazing time for me creatively and "mindfully."
It was a neat rehearsal last night. I had been struggling with a theory of edits in long-form improv games over this past week and I think I'm much closer.
Last night, I introduced the strategy for playing a Chicken game, i.e., what essentially to do in your long-form improv scene.
Here it is:
1. Concede
2. Get concessions
3. Threaten
4. Promote deadlock
2. Get concessions
3. Threaten
4. Promote deadlock
Strategy #1 is what you should employ to go about getting what your character wants. If the other player doesn't concede on her own, you try to get concessions from her so that you get what your character wants (Strategy #2).
The first two strategies involve concessions. When concessions aren't being evenly doled out, you move into the last two strategies, which involve standing firm.
Strategy #3 is the threat. It is the "You better give me this else I'm going to make this game very difficult for you to play" move. It is a firm stance rather than a concession. It is a move to get a concession from the other player, who seems to be hardcore standing firm.
Strategy #4 is about promoting deadlock, which is the worst outcome in long-form improv. It involves both players' standing firm. Essentially, when you play this, you not only are making the scene impossible to play, but also the other player has been impossible in conceding. If you've conceded already in the game, there's less reason for you to when the other player has not. So, you say essentially, "Fuck you for not conceding when I conceded already to you. I'm going to wait here until you concede (or do whatever it takes to put this game in deadlock)."
I was doing research after rehearsal in listening to The Second City CDs I have, measuring the initiations, concessions, firm stances, and deadlock, then where the scenes were edited. I was being less picky about mapping the concessions, and more general--in essence, I was only plotting the concessions and firm stances when a player's strategy changed from one tactic to the other. Fascinating. There's less hard formula for determining when to edit a scene, but there's a lot more to coach with now as a result of these findings (which I don't want to share here). It's almost formulaic, but not quite. More like a formula with some nice exceptions. Maybe I could make a formula that accounts for those exceptions, too? (Actually, I would love to do that!)
Wanted to share. It's still such an amazing time for me creatively and "mindfully."
<b>Addendum: DC > CC > CD > DD</b>
While researching a little last night, it dawned on me that the #1, #2, #3 & #4 strategies may not be constructed parallel. I think it's pretty helpful advice for playing a game, I just think it needs a little more specification.
In particular, I note that Strategy #2 is a concession. In fact, it may be a combinatorial strategy between hardcore conceding and hardcore threatening. That is, it's a mix of conceding and standing firm. Food for my thought.
While researching a little last night, it dawned on me that the #1, #2, #3 & #4 strategies may not be constructed parallel. I think it's pretty helpful advice for playing a game, I just think it needs a little more specification.
In particular, I note that Strategy #2 is a concession. In fact, it may be a combinatorial strategy between hardcore conceding and hardcore threatening. That is, it's a mix of conceding and standing firm. Food for my thought.
<b>For Your Consideration</b>
Amended to the above:
It probably is akin, just a different way to go about things. A promise will cost me in the game; a threat will cost you in the game.
Perhaps for the fourth Strategy, it might better be:
Reason being, deadlock is the worst outcome of the game. Perhaps even worse than that is ending the game. Like, leaving the scene (in the character-game), leaving the stage (in the player-game), having a want that is independent of the other player's want, etc. It's likely the execution of the threat or promise.
Amended to the above:
3. Promise/threaten
It probably is akin, just a different way to go about things. A promise will cost me in the game; a threat will cost you in the game.
Perhaps for the fourth Strategy, it might better be:
4. Deadlock/endgame
Reason being, deadlock is the worst outcome of the game. Perhaps even worse than that is ending the game. Like, leaving the scene (in the character-game), leaving the stage (in the player-game), having a want that is independent of the other player's want, etc. It's likely the execution of the threat or promise.
<b>The Joke</b>
On the whole, jokes don't have a place in long-form improv. "It's not about the joke" is how it goes, and if you're aiming to make jokes, or gags, or whatnot, your focus is off.
Or so that's how I feel.
It's with that logic I'm trying to get to the heart of long-form improv games. I've been working on a theory of editing for a while because I've never liked the advice to "edit on the laugh" or "edit on high energy" as the explanation of where and why to edit.
My "research" and study has been pointing to "edit on the concession" as the point where to edit a scene. Oftentimes, it just so happens there is a laugh at that concession, and there is significant energy built up in the scene.
Perhaps a more accurate way to say it is to say "edit on the compromise," the compromise being the second concession, usually the concession of the initiator since the other player often makes a concession immediately in the game.
Now, there are different ways to deal with edits and I'm still trying to sort through them. Some scenes end in deadlock, which involves both players in a scene standing firm for what they want. When one player is not able to get a concession from the other player, when the game reaches a deadlock or endgame, there is a kind of "polarity" built up in the game. When the backline edits at a moment of polarity, often this polarity is what carries over to the next game.
In essence, the edit seems to point up and/or point out something. It communicates information. Usually what it communicates is a character's want. The edit helps point out "THIS is what this character realllllly wants!" or "THAT is what this character wanted allll alonggggg!"
The problem with this whole theory is that it doesn't describe jokey scenes. My resolution to that problem is to disregard jokey scenes as long-form scenes.
This is how (today) I do that.
A game is the pursuit of interdependent wants. The long-form improv game is a game between two or more players to get what each of their respective characters want. A player tries to get concessions from another player to get what his character wants. The audience may laugh, but that is a consequence of their pursuits, not the aim of their pursuits.
A joke (or a gag) is made to induce a laugh. When they appear in long-form improv, they are not about trying to get a concession from the other player. Instead, they are about getting a concession from the audience. In that sense, jokes are about the game between the player (or coalition of players) making the joke and the audience.
Jokes are edited right after they occur. That is because they are edited on the concession--when the audience laughs, acknowledging the humor of the joke.
But long-form improv games are not about getting such a concession from the audience. They are about building a WHOLE PIECE that is aimed at getting the concession from the audience.
In other words, the audience goes to the show to watch a Harold, not to watch jokes. If you try to get the audience to concede to your jokes, you are not getting the audience to concede to your Harold.
Or are you?
I don't think you are. Jokes are for short-form. They are edited on the laugh.
Now, one may argue that short-form has its place in long-form, and to some people it may. Myself, today, I don't believe so, unless short-form is about the pursuit of interdependent wants.
It's all very interesting.
I credit Dave McKeel for listening to me.
On the whole, jokes don't have a place in long-form improv. "It's not about the joke" is how it goes, and if you're aiming to make jokes, or gags, or whatnot, your focus is off.
Or so that's how I feel.
It's with that logic I'm trying to get to the heart of long-form improv games. I've been working on a theory of editing for a while because I've never liked the advice to "edit on the laugh" or "edit on high energy" as the explanation of where and why to edit.
My "research" and study has been pointing to "edit on the concession" as the point where to edit a scene. Oftentimes, it just so happens there is a laugh at that concession, and there is significant energy built up in the scene.
Perhaps a more accurate way to say it is to say "edit on the compromise," the compromise being the second concession, usually the concession of the initiator since the other player often makes a concession immediately in the game.
Now, there are different ways to deal with edits and I'm still trying to sort through them. Some scenes end in deadlock, which involves both players in a scene standing firm for what they want. When one player is not able to get a concession from the other player, when the game reaches a deadlock or endgame, there is a kind of "polarity" built up in the game. When the backline edits at a moment of polarity, often this polarity is what carries over to the next game.
In essence, the edit seems to point up and/or point out something. It communicates information. Usually what it communicates is a character's want. The edit helps point out "THIS is what this character realllllly wants!" or "THAT is what this character wanted allll alonggggg!"
The problem with this whole theory is that it doesn't describe jokey scenes. My resolution to that problem is to disregard jokey scenes as long-form scenes.
This is how (today) I do that.
A game is the pursuit of interdependent wants. The long-form improv game is a game between two or more players to get what each of their respective characters want. A player tries to get concessions from another player to get what his character wants. The audience may laugh, but that is a consequence of their pursuits, not the aim of their pursuits.
A joke (or a gag) is made to induce a laugh. When they appear in long-form improv, they are not about trying to get a concession from the other player. Instead, they are about getting a concession from the audience. In that sense, jokes are about the game between the player (or coalition of players) making the joke and the audience.
Jokes are edited right after they occur. That is because they are edited on the concession--when the audience laughs, acknowledging the humor of the joke.
But long-form improv games are not about getting such a concession from the audience. They are about building a WHOLE PIECE that is aimed at getting the concession from the audience.
In other words, the audience goes to the show to watch a Harold, not to watch jokes. If you try to get the audience to concede to your jokes, you are not getting the audience to concede to your Harold.
Or are you?
I don't think you are. Jokes are for short-form. They are edited on the laugh.
Now, one may argue that short-form has its place in long-form, and to some people it may. Myself, today, I don't believe so, unless short-form is about the pursuit of interdependent wants.
It's all very interesting.
I credit Dave McKeel for listening to me.
<b>One Day, Maybe We Will Get What We Want From Our Concessions To Time</b>
How can we ever reverse time? How can we ever control time?
As far as I can tell now, we cannot control it. We cannot slow it, we cannot stop it--it just keeps going on, regardless of our efforts.
We concede to time. Thus, it has its way with us, and it gets what it wants from us. We are born with it, and with it, we eventually die. No matter what we do to reverse its effects, we eventually, inevitably succumb to it.
Time Is A Bully.
How are we ever to get a concession from time, to get what we want?
Time wants to end us. We want to continue in spite of it. We want stasis, it wants progress.
We give it progress, it never gives us stasis.
I believe in high school I wondered that if we were able to maintain 0° Kelvin, would we stop time? (Maybe I was thinking of something else.) We would likely stop movement at that temperature, and potentially we would stop change. (Or would we?)
The interesting dynamic of time (this is a slightly separate thought) is that no two things are ever the same because they are different in space-time--that is, time as a component of space.
It may require some kind of outside body of law to step in to reverse the irrepressible firm stance of time. Some authority, something that can enforce a rule or legislation. Something that can stick up for the beaten, bruised victims of time's passage.
I really wish I had the idea. Perhaps this is my new research.
How can we ever reverse time? How can we ever control time?
As far as I can tell now, we cannot control it. We cannot slow it, we cannot stop it--it just keeps going on, regardless of our efforts.
We concede to time. Thus, it has its way with us, and it gets what it wants from us. We are born with it, and with it, we eventually die. No matter what we do to reverse its effects, we eventually, inevitably succumb to it.
Time Is A Bully.
How are we ever to get a concession from time, to get what we want?
Time wants to end us. We want to continue in spite of it. We want stasis, it wants progress.
We give it progress, it never gives us stasis.
I believe in high school I wondered that if we were able to maintain 0° Kelvin, would we stop time? (Maybe I was thinking of something else.) We would likely stop movement at that temperature, and potentially we would stop change. (Or would we?)
The interesting dynamic of time (this is a slightly separate thought) is that no two things are ever the same because they are different in space-time--that is, time as a component of space.
It may require some kind of outside body of law to step in to reverse the irrepressible firm stance of time. Some authority, something that can enforce a rule or legislation. Something that can stick up for the beaten, bruised victims of time's passage.
I really wish I had the idea. Perhaps this is my new research.
<b> :inlove: :bleagh: :loopy: 
</b>
This story has a nice spin on it at the end.
Nigerians Charged with Removing Boy's Eyes
Wed Feb 11,10:00 AM ET
LAGOS, Nigeria (Reuters) - Four Nigerian men were charged with plucking out the eyes of a 13-year-old schoolboy for use in witchcraft, the state news agency reported Tuesday.
They face charges ranging from criminal conspiracy to grievous bodily harm and permanent disfigurement for the attack on the boy, who was taken to hospital in the northeastern state of Bauchi.
Police suspect the attack was commissioned by one of the defendants to make a charm believed to make people invisible.
The case will be heard by an Islamic court in Bauchi on February 18, the News Agency of Nigeria said.
If found guilty, the defendants could have their own eyes removed under the Islamic sharia code, the agency added.
Bauchi is one of 12 predominantly Muslim states in northern Nigeria which adopted sharia law five years ago.
</b>This story has a nice spin on it at the end.
Nigerians Charged with Removing Boy's Eyes
Wed Feb 11,10:00 AM ET
LAGOS, Nigeria (Reuters) - Four Nigerian men were charged with plucking out the eyes of a 13-year-old schoolboy for use in witchcraft, the state news agency reported Tuesday.
They face charges ranging from criminal conspiracy to grievous bodily harm and permanent disfigurement for the attack on the boy, who was taken to hospital in the northeastern state of Bauchi.
Police suspect the attack was commissioned by one of the defendants to make a charm believed to make people invisible.
The case will be heard by an Islamic court in Bauchi on February 18, the News Agency of Nigeria said.
If found guilty, the defendants could have their own eyes removed under the Islamic sharia code, the agency added.
Bauchi is one of 12 predominantly Muslim states in northern Nigeria which adopted sharia law five years ago.
<b>I Have My Suspicions</b>
There's a spinoff of game theory known as "drama theory." It claims that game theory doesn't really describe the interactions between characters in a drama with much satisfaction. It uses its own terms in describing the dynamic seen between characters in a play.
I'm not so sure about its accuracy in describing the dramatic interaction. What I'm working on with my book uses game theory, and it applies amazingly well.
I haven't spent too much time getting to know drama theory (the spinoff of game theory--I have spent time with dramatic theory, which for the most part I find incomplete and occasionally misguided). But I'm leery of drama theory's efficacy. The purveyors don't seem to be actors or dramatists, the two most important workers in staging a drama (my opinion). Drama theorists seem (to me) in general to be interlopers, well-read analysts of drama who don't actually confront the challenges of staging a convincing performance or writing one.
Note that these are my evaluations in a rather glossy overview, and my evaluations may be inaccurate.
You can decide for yourself: http://www.dramatec.com
85 pages so far and still counting!
There's a spinoff of game theory known as "drama theory." It claims that game theory doesn't really describe the interactions between characters in a drama with much satisfaction. It uses its own terms in describing the dynamic seen between characters in a play.
I'm not so sure about its accuracy in describing the dramatic interaction. What I'm working on with my book uses game theory, and it applies amazingly well.
I haven't spent too much time getting to know drama theory (the spinoff of game theory--I have spent time with dramatic theory, which for the most part I find incomplete and occasionally misguided). But I'm leery of drama theory's efficacy. The purveyors don't seem to be actors or dramatists, the two most important workers in staging a drama (my opinion). Drama theorists seem (to me) in general to be interlopers, well-read analysts of drama who don't actually confront the challenges of staging a convincing performance or writing one.
Note that these are my evaluations in a rather glossy overview, and my evaluations may be inaccurate.
You can decide for yourself: http://www.dramatec.com
85 pages so far and still counting!
<b>An Election Is Won When You Get The Tabloids To Make Pithy Headlines That Support You No Matter What The Story Is</b>
DIET DOCTOR DIED OBESE
My furor (quite tempered) over this Dr. Atkins headline that he was obese at the time of his death (later refuted, actually) running on the front of AOL was provoked because the headline was misleading, lacking important content for the reader to understand the full story.
The headline was an abstraction taken to an extreme. When people have consciousness of abstraction (something Korzybski pointed up in Science & Sanity, the first major book covering general-semantics), they are more likely to be aware of the processes involved between event, evaluation, and language. They are more in tune with looking at the reality behind the words, the dynamic interactions between and among events.
Assuming the Dr. Atkins was overweight (it was apparently discounted a day after the news came out), what the headline did not say was that Atkins suffered from cardiomyopathy. As I understand it, cardiomyopathy was the reason why Dr. Atkins retained water and ballooned in size. Cardiomyopathy was also a factor in his heart disease.
While millions of people likely saw the headline, "DIET DOCTOR DIED OBESE," less read the actual story detailing his cardiomyopathy and even less saw the headline refuted (AOL never ran an equally commanding article to counter the claim).
The result is that there are a large number of people still out there who assume DIET DOCTOR DIED OBESE.
The headline is sexy. It suggests Dr. Atkins was a hypocrite, or if not a hypocrite, that his diet eventually killed him and is as such a failure of a diet plan. It caters to the controversy people play regarding Dr. Atkins's diet; it does not cater to the reality of Dr. Atkins's cardiomyopathy.
I seem to think that's what elections are all about. It's about getting snazzy headline after snazzy headline, which builds momentum. What you want is to have the snazziest headline at the last possible minute before the election with the widest audience. If you have a horrible headline broadcast to a large audience, you will lose support. And thus, your momentum starts to tumble, or it may just bottom out for you.
It's the people who write the headlines, it's the people who put the stories on the covers of wide-readership publications and wide-viewership broadcasts and wide-coverage web portals, etc., who need to be the focus of the candidates. When you pay the headliner to cast you in the best possible light despite having bad news associated with your story, you are going to win. As long as your bad news is abstracted away from the headlines and concentrated more in the stories, you're going to be fine.
There may be little things along the way, but if they don't appear in DIET DOCTOR DIED OBESE, they mean little to public opinion. :tsk:
DIET DOCTOR DIED OBESE
My furor (quite tempered) over this Dr. Atkins headline that he was obese at the time of his death (later refuted, actually) running on the front of AOL was provoked because the headline was misleading, lacking important content for the reader to understand the full story.
The headline was an abstraction taken to an extreme. When people have consciousness of abstraction (something Korzybski pointed up in Science & Sanity, the first major book covering general-semantics), they are more likely to be aware of the processes involved between event, evaluation, and language. They are more in tune with looking at the reality behind the words, the dynamic interactions between and among events.
Assuming the Dr. Atkins was overweight (it was apparently discounted a day after the news came out), what the headline did not say was that Atkins suffered from cardiomyopathy. As I understand it, cardiomyopathy was the reason why Dr. Atkins retained water and ballooned in size. Cardiomyopathy was also a factor in his heart disease.
While millions of people likely saw the headline, "DIET DOCTOR DIED OBESE," less read the actual story detailing his cardiomyopathy and even less saw the headline refuted (AOL never ran an equally commanding article to counter the claim).
The result is that there are a large number of people still out there who assume DIET DOCTOR DIED OBESE.
The headline is sexy. It suggests Dr. Atkins was a hypocrite, or if not a hypocrite, that his diet eventually killed him and is as such a failure of a diet plan. It caters to the controversy people play regarding Dr. Atkins's diet; it does not cater to the reality of Dr. Atkins's cardiomyopathy.
I seem to think that's what elections are all about. It's about getting snazzy headline after snazzy headline, which builds momentum. What you want is to have the snazziest headline at the last possible minute before the election with the widest audience. If you have a horrible headline broadcast to a large audience, you will lose support. And thus, your momentum starts to tumble, or it may just bottom out for you.
It's the people who write the headlines, it's the people who put the stories on the covers of wide-readership publications and wide-viewership broadcasts and wide-coverage web portals, etc., who need to be the focus of the candidates. When you pay the headliner to cast you in the best possible light despite having bad news associated with your story, you are going to win. As long as your bad news is abstracted away from the headlines and concentrated more in the stories, you're going to be fine.
There may be little things along the way, but if they don't appear in DIET DOCTOR DIED OBESE, they mean little to public opinion. :tsk:
<b>Love</b>
My current theory of love, through the eyes of game theory & my bastard's physics
Synergy = potential energy; the energy from two or more players in a cooperative relationship
You increase synergy the more wants the players have that they are able to cooperate, while still interested in playing the game. You are more and more able to concede to the wants of the other player, while the other player is more and more able to concede to your wants--while still interested in playing the game.
Once you lose interest in the game, interdependence between the players breaks down. One player no longer relies on the other player for getting what s/he wants.
Interdependence is created in the "yes" part of "yes-anding" in a relationship. That is, seeking permission ("yes" or "no") establishes interdependence. Once you are doing things independent of permission, you are simply seeking what you want.
To ensure interdependence and ideally happiness in the relationship, you seek the permission of your lover to do the things you want, and your lover grants you permission to do that thing. The more your lover grants you permission to do those things you want to do, synergy rises--that is, the "power of love" rises.
A powerful love is that in which the two players seek permission to do extreme things from the other player, and the other player grants permission.
*
There may be a kinetic-energy kind of love--that is, a competitive kind of love. But I think such relationships end up evolving into cooperative relationships or end up just ending, likely bitterly.
*
To love is to cooperate more and more and more.
*
:love:
My current theory of love, through the eyes of game theory & my bastard's physics
Synergy = potential energy; the energy from two or more players in a cooperative relationship
You increase synergy the more wants the players have that they are able to cooperate, while still interested in playing the game. You are more and more able to concede to the wants of the other player, while the other player is more and more able to concede to your wants--while still interested in playing the game.
Once you lose interest in the game, interdependence between the players breaks down. One player no longer relies on the other player for getting what s/he wants.
Interdependence is created in the "yes" part of "yes-anding" in a relationship. That is, seeking permission ("yes" or "no") establishes interdependence. Once you are doing things independent of permission, you are simply seeking what you want.
To ensure interdependence and ideally happiness in the relationship, you seek the permission of your lover to do the things you want, and your lover grants you permission to do that thing. The more your lover grants you permission to do those things you want to do, synergy rises--that is, the "power of love" rises.
A powerful love is that in which the two players seek permission to do extreme things from the other player, and the other player grants permission.
*
There may be a kinetic-energy kind of love--that is, a competitive kind of love. But I think such relationships end up evolving into cooperative relationships or end up just ending, likely bitterly.
*
To love is to cooperate more and more and more.
*
:love:
<b>1,000 Umbrellas Upturned Couldn't Catch All The Rain That Drained Out of My Head</b>
Quite crushed feeling today.
What's been really enlightening in the last week was figuring out how when it comes to particular feelings, esp. for another person, I squelch them so automatically. It's an (emotional) habit of mine. It's been nice to recognize them rather than squelch them, but it's also quite scary and baffling. I trust that the experience will lead to emotional growth and get me past some of my relationship blocks and such that I've had in my life--I have gone years without acknowledging crushes, for the most part (I gather) from fear of humiliation.
What does this have to do with what I want to write?
Well, I feel that crushed feeling from being vulnerable and exposing that vulnerability. Which is a good thing. What I'm trying to figure out is what's the better/best way to deal with it?
I think my pattern when aching or hurting is to dive into work. First off, work, esp. hard, focused work, has a therapeutic feel to me, it really drives me forward in spite of the pain, and I can really accomplish some amazing things. However, what I can't tell is whether work is akin to a drug, that I am instead not recognizing the pain and instead should live in the pain of heartache/smashed vulnerability for a time (I suppose that's grieving). Then, add in there "What the hell do I do with my self-esteem, do I refuse to feel badly about myself when I'm aching, or do I choose to feel badly about myself? Or is there another option I'm not considering?"
Secondly, I forget what my Secondly is... Well, whatever, but I noticed that this feeling of unreciprocated affection (rather, suddenly diverted affection) is really painful, and it leads to a first reaction of confusion-then-anger. I get teary-eyed thinking about it right now (already) (as I was last night, when I articulated "disappointed" to my roommate), so maybe I'm already onto grieving or whatever's after anger phasically. A little confused by it all, trying to sort things out, organize the information (the humanation of chaos I write about........). I'm in a somewhat odd predicament that I've offered a future carrot that may or may not be taken, which I was excited to pull from my pocket then, and congratulated myself for the remarkable task I had done, but afterwards now I'm not so sure I want this carrot chawed on. "At least it's an opportunity to get to know someone, right?" I think that's an intellectual side of me that's trying to rationalize it, but ultimately, I don't think I want the rationalized existence of "it," instead I long/pain/love for the emotional-physical closeness, the bite of arm and ear, the o'erwhelm of dynamite yessing, TNT bonding, the goafter, smellyourneck, spankyouthankyou kind of feelings. Mostly physical, but the physical bred the emotional. Why? Because I felt wanted. And I laughed. She made me laugh. Who makes me fucking laugh these days? More like a real, deepdown chuckly, that was like "WOW." It made me take note. I wrote her off at the beginning, but two days later I was like, "HELLO, WHOA, YOU MADE ME LAUGH."
Not sure how I feel about it, but I'm in the dip of the roller coaster.
Floating downstream to a town they called Misery. Ugh!
Quite crushed feeling today.
What's been really enlightening in the last week was figuring out how when it comes to particular feelings, esp. for another person, I squelch them so automatically. It's an (emotional) habit of mine. It's been nice to recognize them rather than squelch them, but it's also quite scary and baffling. I trust that the experience will lead to emotional growth and get me past some of my relationship blocks and such that I've had in my life--I have gone years without acknowledging crushes, for the most part (I gather) from fear of humiliation.
What does this have to do with what I want to write?
Well, I feel that crushed feeling from being vulnerable and exposing that vulnerability. Which is a good thing. What I'm trying to figure out is what's the better/best way to deal with it?
I think my pattern when aching or hurting is to dive into work. First off, work, esp. hard, focused work, has a therapeutic feel to me, it really drives me forward in spite of the pain, and I can really accomplish some amazing things. However, what I can't tell is whether work is akin to a drug, that I am instead not recognizing the pain and instead should live in the pain of heartache/smashed vulnerability for a time (I suppose that's grieving). Then, add in there "What the hell do I do with my self-esteem, do I refuse to feel badly about myself when I'm aching, or do I choose to feel badly about myself? Or is there another option I'm not considering?"
Secondly, I forget what my Secondly is... Well, whatever, but I noticed that this feeling of unreciprocated affection (rather, suddenly diverted affection) is really painful, and it leads to a first reaction of confusion-then-anger. I get teary-eyed thinking about it right now (already) (as I was last night, when I articulated "disappointed" to my roommate), so maybe I'm already onto grieving or whatever's after anger phasically. A little confused by it all, trying to sort things out, organize the information (the humanation of chaos I write about........). I'm in a somewhat odd predicament that I've offered a future carrot that may or may not be taken, which I was excited to pull from my pocket then, and congratulated myself for the remarkable task I had done, but afterwards now I'm not so sure I want this carrot chawed on. "At least it's an opportunity to get to know someone, right?" I think that's an intellectual side of me that's trying to rationalize it, but ultimately, I don't think I want the rationalized existence of "it," instead I long/pain/love for the emotional-physical closeness, the bite of arm and ear, the o'erwhelm of dynamite yessing, TNT bonding, the goafter, smellyourneck, spankyouthankyou kind of feelings. Mostly physical, but the physical bred the emotional. Why? Because I felt wanted. And I laughed. She made me laugh. Who makes me fucking laugh these days? More like a real, deepdown chuckly, that was like "WOW." It made me take note. I wrote her off at the beginning, but two days later I was like, "HELLO, WHOA, YOU MADE ME LAUGH."
Not sure how I feel about it, but I'm in the dip of the roller coaster.
Floating downstream to a town they called Misery. Ugh!
Last edited:
<b>Secondly</b>
I remember my Secondly now, I think. I think it's something to do with "feeling wanted." That's the bite: Feeling wanted. When you're cooperating, you're feeling wanted.
When I ran back to see the church, it was an impulsive test to see if she'd follow. She did not; I thought she would. That told me she was not cooperating. I crossed the street while she stayed back--even an old man crossed the street at a snail's pace. Granted, just ripped out of serial monogamy and a 4-year, marriage-bound relationship plays a role, but it's there's not the wantingtowardme, the lean, the direction, the unnecessary pawing, the raise of eyebrown* and opening of eye, "yes, I'd like to hear the song you just made," the questionsdirectedawayfromthegroupandonlyto <b>me</b>, Anymore, it's hard to figure out and the figuring-out tends toward "I guess I lose." You never really know exactly what's going on in a person's mind, but their body language tells you some things. Body language was in the Off position last night, compared to the other nights. Sadness. "I'm not playing a game with you anymore."
I gotta wonder if it was but the fascination of the attraction, and once it manifested into words, that gulping move to Ask Her Out, was all that she wanted, and she wanted nothing more. Just Verification. She confessed that she's extremely awkward now in this 4-month singlelife, can't ask people out with any success, only baffoonery. I took that as telegraphy, that she was cueing me to do something about that. I rose, I flew, I flopped on the floor.
I believe this can feed my character's pain well in the play.
* Edit: Cool typo. Her eyes are something blue.
I remember my Secondly now, I think. I think it's something to do with "feeling wanted." That's the bite: Feeling wanted. When you're cooperating, you're feeling wanted.
When I ran back to see the church, it was an impulsive test to see if she'd follow. She did not; I thought she would. That told me she was not cooperating. I crossed the street while she stayed back--even an old man crossed the street at a snail's pace. Granted, just ripped out of serial monogamy and a 4-year, marriage-bound relationship plays a role, but it's there's not the wantingtowardme, the lean, the direction, the unnecessary pawing, the raise of eyebrown* and opening of eye, "yes, I'd like to hear the song you just made," the questionsdirectedawayfromthegroupandonlyto <b>me</b>, Anymore, it's hard to figure out and the figuring-out tends toward "I guess I lose." You never really know exactly what's going on in a person's mind, but their body language tells you some things. Body language was in the Off position last night, compared to the other nights. Sadness. "I'm not playing a game with you anymore."
I gotta wonder if it was but the fascination of the attraction, and once it manifested into words, that gulping move to Ask Her Out, was all that she wanted, and she wanted nothing more. Just Verification. She confessed that she's extremely awkward now in this 4-month singlelife, can't ask people out with any success, only baffoonery. I took that as telegraphy, that she was cueing me to do something about that. I rose, I flew, I flopped on the floor.
I believe this can feed my character's pain well in the play.
* Edit: Cool typo. Her eyes are something blue.
<b>The Real Secondly</b>
Doh. The Secondly I was thinking about was Problem-Solving. When down, give myself a problem to solve. Not only is my energy redirected, but if I solve it, there is a sense of accomplishment, a sense of winning.
The wonderfully horrible thing about relationships is that you open yourself up to lose. Some people. At least at the beginning? Right now it's a problem that I see is beyond me to solve, it takes the moves of the other player to see if we're in a game.
The mayor cares not about my crisis. He only plays games with me involving sanitation, transportation, finances, and the like.
But is the desire to solve a problem, a crossword, dissolve string theory, again, but a diversion from the pain, or a therapy to live with the pain? Are the hardest workers and the smartest stallions the most feeling of all?
I've changed my perspective: Instead of a person who doesn't like many people, I think I develop feelings immensely for people, easily for people. Maybe,perhaps. It's a new way of seeing myself, and recognizing my needs. I'm in a new, fresh time: I'm loving this 2004. I don't know where this will take me. What did that fortune say 4 years ago that this year would be?
Doh. The Secondly I was thinking about was Problem-Solving. When down, give myself a problem to solve. Not only is my energy redirected, but if I solve it, there is a sense of accomplishment, a sense of winning.
The wonderfully horrible thing about relationships is that you open yourself up to lose. Some people. At least at the beginning? Right now it's a problem that I see is beyond me to solve, it takes the moves of the other player to see if we're in a game.
The mayor cares not about my crisis. He only plays games with me involving sanitation, transportation, finances, and the like.
But is the desire to solve a problem, a crossword, dissolve string theory, again, but a diversion from the pain, or a therapy to live with the pain? Are the hardest workers and the smartest stallions the most feeling of all?
I've changed my perspective: Instead of a person who doesn't like many people, I think I develop feelings immensely for people, easily for people. Maybe,perhaps. It's a new way of seeing myself, and recognizing my needs. I'm in a new, fresh time: I'm loving this 2004. I don't know where this will take me. What did that fortune say 4 years ago that this year would be?
<b>The Combinatorial Effects of Fear & Feeling</b>
Fixation.
Hm.
Why did I first run the marathon? It was partially because I liked a girl. That kept me going. I wanted to show that girl something about me. She never did like me, it turned out, and I held out and held out for the day she'd acknowledge me romantically. One night I decided I was ready to do something about my feelings, I said what I needed to say, I got a rejection, but a rejection with a "maybe later" kind of feeling to it, something that kept me holding out. She never did make it to the finish line, and soon after I gave up.
I have long been a studier, a good student. As a result, I've had few friends. I've wondered if it's fear that kept me studying, perhaps some kind of fatherly fear, so I holed up myself in my room and did homework because I was uncomfortable around him. That may be partly true.
But given what I'm feeling right now, and that I'm feeling something strongly, I'm wanting to dive into work. Something to take my mind off of these intense feelings. Rather than just have them sit there, keeping me ambling. I think that's part of why work helps, too--the intense feelings keep me ambling, and I need a way to expend that energy.
The thing is, I have pretty bad concentration sometimes, so when I'm feeling something strongly (esp., say, when I'm reading a book), I can't focus on what the book is telling me, instead I'm thinking about those things I want to think about. That could be called obsessing, perhaps, and just in case it is akin, I've been trying to look into the benefits of trying to calm myself down and self-hypnosis.
I am pretty excitable sometimes. On the whole, I say I'm excitable. When I see some people, I go into this "EEEEEEE!!!!!" state, as if I'm riding the crest of a tidal wave of euphoria. It'll crash and hit the beach eventually, that's the not-fun part of it. Relaxing tries to get me to just enjoy riding the lesser waves, but the difficult thing about it is I feel a lot less that way. That's a little having to do with these feelings now: I'm trying to calm down in getting to know a person, but I feel a little slow-in-the-head ... calming down slows down my thoughts, almost to a halt sometimes. If I were operating on fast/excited, it's like I'm on/turned-on/there. I'm operating.
I have some idea of how to make myself feel better, but it's as if I need a little grieving to come out, some catharsis, before I can move to that better feeling. It's a sense of loss I'm dealing with, and loss involves pain, loss involves losing at a game. I could treat the game differently, treat it as a cooperation game, but I think that makes you less vulnerable. Competition involves vulnerability--the higher stakes probably influence that.
Fixation.
Hm.
Why did I first run the marathon? It was partially because I liked a girl. That kept me going. I wanted to show that girl something about me. She never did like me, it turned out, and I held out and held out for the day she'd acknowledge me romantically. One night I decided I was ready to do something about my feelings, I said what I needed to say, I got a rejection, but a rejection with a "maybe later" kind of feeling to it, something that kept me holding out. She never did make it to the finish line, and soon after I gave up.
I have long been a studier, a good student. As a result, I've had few friends. I've wondered if it's fear that kept me studying, perhaps some kind of fatherly fear, so I holed up myself in my room and did homework because I was uncomfortable around him. That may be partly true.
But given what I'm feeling right now, and that I'm feeling something strongly, I'm wanting to dive into work. Something to take my mind off of these intense feelings. Rather than just have them sit there, keeping me ambling. I think that's part of why work helps, too--the intense feelings keep me ambling, and I need a way to expend that energy.
The thing is, I have pretty bad concentration sometimes, so when I'm feeling something strongly (esp., say, when I'm reading a book), I can't focus on what the book is telling me, instead I'm thinking about those things I want to think about. That could be called obsessing, perhaps, and just in case it is akin, I've been trying to look into the benefits of trying to calm myself down and self-hypnosis.
I am pretty excitable sometimes. On the whole, I say I'm excitable. When I see some people, I go into this "EEEEEEE!!!!!" state, as if I'm riding the crest of a tidal wave of euphoria. It'll crash and hit the beach eventually, that's the not-fun part of it. Relaxing tries to get me to just enjoy riding the lesser waves, but the difficult thing about it is I feel a lot less that way. That's a little having to do with these feelings now: I'm trying to calm down in getting to know a person, but I feel a little slow-in-the-head ... calming down slows down my thoughts, almost to a halt sometimes. If I were operating on fast/excited, it's like I'm on/turned-on/there. I'm operating.
I have some idea of how to make myself feel better, but it's as if I need a little grieving to come out, some catharsis, before I can move to that better feeling. It's a sense of loss I'm dealing with, and loss involves pain, loss involves losing at a game. I could treat the game differently, treat it as a cooperation game, but I think that makes you less vulnerable. Competition involves vulnerability--the higher stakes probably influence that.
Last edited:
<b>Recipe For Rescue</b>
Work to Solve Problems.
Aimed-For Result:
improved self-esteem
sense of accomplishment
distraction from vulnerable place in way to distance self from vulnerability, and heal
These are hypotheticals...
Finishing "9,000" was therapy from dwelling on my feelings, sitting, wondering. I'm happy about what the pain of vulnerability produced!
Work to Solve Problems.
Aimed-For Result:
improved self-esteem
sense of accomplishment
distraction from vulnerable place in way to distance self from vulnerability, and heal
These are hypotheticals...
Finishing "9,000" was therapy from dwelling on my feelings, sitting, wondering. I'm happy about what the pain of vulnerability produced!
<b>It's Not What I Can Learn About Her...</b>
...It's what I can learn about myself.
Suddenly, that dawned on me while walking to the subway this morning, and for reasons unbeknownst to me, I felt immensely better.
I mean, I'm sure vulnerability has its value. But I think what this dawning says is that we learn about ourselves <i>through</i> other people, and that's why relationships are important. <i>Who am I relative to this person? relative to this town? relative to this social group? relative to the world?</i>
The vulnerable situation I was in was a competitive game, and I felt I was losing. I was set up to lose. If it's about learning about myself (not some kind of selfish, I-want-to-only-learn-about-me-and-not-you-one-bit thing), I play to win. It's a cooperative game.
I wonder how this shift in mindset will apply to my improv class tonight . . . . .
...It's what I can learn about myself.
Suddenly, that dawned on me while walking to the subway this morning, and for reasons unbeknownst to me, I felt immensely better.
I mean, I'm sure vulnerability has its value. But I think what this dawning says is that we learn about ourselves <i>through</i> other people, and that's why relationships are important. <i>Who am I relative to this person? relative to this town? relative to this social group? relative to the world?</i>
The vulnerable situation I was in was a competitive game, and I felt I was losing. I was set up to lose. If it's about learning about myself (not some kind of selfish, I-want-to-only-learn-about-me-and-not-you-one-bit thing), I play to win. It's a cooperative game.
I wonder how this shift in mindset will apply to my improv class tonight . . . . .