Various feedback on "Alice":
I talked with
Tripp, who has the distinction of being a boy growing up, about the Alice issue. "Oh yeah, girl's book," he said. I sputtered a bit, and he said "It's about a blond chick named Alice. Of course it's a girl book."
While I have to concede that Tripp may have a better insight as to what a boy might consider a girl's book, I still think he's wrong. Everyone else I've talked to says it's a classic and for everyone. Granted, everyone else has been a girl.
But, but! I got an e-mail message from someone I don't even know, and he had this to say:
Your comment about kids books is interesting. When my son was very young I bought him one of the Maisey books by Lucy Cousins. Since then he has enjoyed many more and watched all the video's about the female mouse, he loves her to bits. It has never bothered me. I am about to start reading him Alice in Wonderland this week, as his brain is soaking up stories like nobody's business.
I have enjoyed books where the key figure/ hero(ine) is a woman, The Dark Material Trilogy, any book by CJ Cherrygh/ Anne McCaffrey etc. While I admit to a bit off a knee jerk panic when I arrived at nursery one day to find him playing with a doll, I would never stop him from reading a book with a strong female character.
Thank you, Stephen Wallis. And let me recommend Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising series, as well at Madeline L'Engle's Wrinkle in Time and that series. All good stuff.
(Side note: I love getting mail from people I don't know. It's so cool to realize I'm not just talking to myself and my friends.)
A brief interlude
In other news. I saw my friend Shannon last night, who was in town for a conference. You know those people you can not see for two years and have it not matter, you just talk for hours about everything? That's Shannon. She's so cool. She comes from a completely overwhelmingly brilliant and funny family -- the latest news is that her mother has become an award-winning playwright. This does not surprise me in the least.
A rant on "artists"
One of the things we talked about was my decision to never, ever be involved in an artistic organization ever again. It's not because I don't support the mission -- it's because I just can't deal with some of the "artists." I don't know where they learn this, but I keep running into talented people who believe that, because they are talented, they can get away with anything.
Now, if I'd only run into one or two talented artists in my time, maybe I'd let it go. Maybe I'd dismiss it as part of the artistic temperament. Maybe I'd just think "Oh, the rules are different for the aesthetically blessed among us." But you know what? I know a lot of writers and actors and musicians. I've been lucky enough to know a lot of people who are good. Really good. Some of them are even earning-their-living-working-with-their-gift good. And most of them aren't assholes.
Most artists, most talented people I know, are actually worthwhile human beings as well as talented performers or writers or whatever. But I keep running into artists who belive the rules don't apply to them, that sacrifice is something other people have to do, that they don't need to listen to anyone else's thoughts on anything. When it comes to the pure creation of art, I can understand that. I'm not going to play the Emperor of Austria, telling Mozart "Too many notes." But I like to believe that I get involved in these enterprises because I do have something to contribute -- brains, or work, or the ability to get things done, or, god forbid, practicality. I'm nowhere near being Mozart, but I could be the sort of person who gets The Magic Flute funded and staged. But I can't do that if I'm so pissed off at the artists in question that I'm thisclose to homicide.
Now, if I were actually dealing with Mozart, I'd maybe be able to swallow my pride and look to the greater good of the venture in question. But the people I've dealt with, while talented, aren't Mozart. I'm not sure they're even Salieri. They're talented, they're good, they have an artistic vision to contribute, but they can't quite get away with being the self-absorbed schmucks they want to be.
Because I know people who are better than them. People who have more talent, and more humanity. A friend of mine, one of the funniest and most talented actors and improvisors I know, once told me that what he really wanted was to be told that he was full of shit sometimes. At the time, I responded to that statement with, "Wow, you really are full of shit -- who wants to be told they're full of shit?" But now I understand.
And so that's how I respond when I see someone with talent crossing the line into schmuckdom. And it doesn't go over so well.
This was brought to my attention again by an e-mail exchange Lotti was having with someone we used to work with in theater. Lotti sent out a message to god and everybody that she's getting married. Yay! Just letting people know. She got a vitriolic response from a former co-worker, basically saying she was the antichrist for the way she left the company and that in no way could she ever be considered a friend, because she's sooooo irresponsible.
I laughed my ass off.
Lotti, and I, and several other people, left this organization because of the "I do not need to follow the rules of normal human behavior" attitude exhibited by a couple of people in the group. This included things like, oh,
walking out on a performance 15 minutes before curtain when we had no understudy because of ... I still don't know. A fit of pique. Artistic differences. A fucking hissyfit. (The stage manager went on for the actor in question. We all said "Oh! So
that's what the part looks like when it's done well!") And then turning around and saying that the one who walked out should direct the next show. So hell yeah, we left. And hell yeah, we told people why. And if that means you didn't get funding from some people, you can hardly blame us for it. Funders aren't stupid. They don't want to throw money at a bunch of basket cases.
Again, the vast majority of talent people I know are vehemently
not assholes. Trust me, you can be talented and creative and true to your art without being a schmuck.
Don't let the schmucks get away with this behavior. It can only help art if we hold the artists responsible for their actions. If they back out on a commitment, that means they don't get paid. If they screw something up, they have to face the consequences. Holding their hands and making everything all right and cleaning up the messes does not mean you'll have a better artist -- it just means you'll have an immature asshole with talent on your hands. Think of what they could achieve if they
weren't having temper tantrums. Think of what they could produce if they
weren't holding their breath until they turned blue.
Grrr. Stupid artistes. Grow the fuck up.
