Last year in Harrisburg the team from Pittsburg called Hustlebot did a Harold workshop. In like 90 mintues they had undertaken the task of showing a really wide range of people-- some experienced improvisers I guess, college theater students, "local" theater groups, but mostly short-form players-- how to do a harold. At that point I had done five 8 week classes in NY about the Harold, and I was interested to see what there take on it was.
That "interest" took a back seat to being amazed over how tough it is to explain a Harold to people who had very little-to-no long form experience. They did a great job actually, and they are a really good team. They didn't bother calling the opening an opening, they called a group game. The fundamentalist part of me laughed a bit, but then I realized they saved themselves a lot of time by doing that. They also answered most questions, if I'm remembering this correctly, with "do it anyway you see fit, it has to serve your group's purpose and you have to do it the way that suits you" or something along those lines. It seems to me that that answer retains the rebellious nature that endowed this art form with the lofty goal of being the "last bastion of the counter-culture." "Do it anyway you want" might be more "harold" than the "suggestion -> opening -> 3 1st beats -> gg -> 3 2nd beats -> gg -> 3rd beats" formula would be without it. The formula without that spirit behind it might be more like a zombie harold than a harold.
For about a year/year-and-a-half I've thought of Harold in light of the idea that it was created to address a problem Del saw in the people he was working with. Isn't it the case that The Harold was a way to get the players to get away from plot? So, first and foremost I think of Harold as a way to avoid plot. If I'm wrong, I'm sticking with that till I find something better. All the structural details are only there as ways to get away from plot and back to exploring the thing the group mind is saying about the suggestion.
That "interest" took a back seat to being amazed over how tough it is to explain a Harold to people who had very little-to-no long form experience. They did a great job actually, and they are a really good team. They didn't bother calling the opening an opening, they called a group game. The fundamentalist part of me laughed a bit, but then I realized they saved themselves a lot of time by doing that. They also answered most questions, if I'm remembering this correctly, with "do it anyway you see fit, it has to serve your group's purpose and you have to do it the way that suits you" or something along those lines. It seems to me that that answer retains the rebellious nature that endowed this art form with the lofty goal of being the "last bastion of the counter-culture." "Do it anyway you want" might be more "harold" than the "suggestion -> opening -> 3 1st beats -> gg -> 3 2nd beats -> gg -> 3rd beats" formula would be without it. The formula without that spirit behind it might be more like a zombie harold than a harold.
For about a year/year-and-a-half I've thought of Harold in light of the idea that it was created to address a problem Del saw in the people he was working with. Isn't it the case that The Harold was a way to get the players to get away from plot? So, first and foremost I think of Harold as a way to avoid plot. If I'm wrong, I'm sticking with that till I find something better. All the structural details are only there as ways to get away from plot and back to exploring the thing the group mind is saying about the suggestion.