Creativity from Objectivity

One of the most interesting political philosophies, in my opinion, is objectivism. I'll elaborate on this interest more later on, after I explain the basic tenets. Objectivism originated in the works of Ayn Rand, a very controversial political philosopher whose popularity has grown tremendously in recent years. Rand advocated complete individual freedom and a society in which government's only purpose was to enforce contacts. There would be no regulation of speech or individual actions unless they caused implicit and immediate harm to other individuals. No regulations or restrictions would be placed on business practices, as it was assumed that unbridled competition was the only way to fully create the best possible products at the lowest possible cost. Morally, objectivism advocates selfishness; one should never do anything unless they benefit from the action in some way. This belief especially brought about public distaste for objectivism because of its fundamental opposition to altruism and charity. It also didn't help that Ayn Rand herself was such an unlikable figure, which contributed to the backlash against objectivism during her life. 

Now on to what I find so interesting about this philosophy. Objectivism is such a straightforward, blunt political and moral philosophy that this nature alone increases my interest in it (and when I say interest, I mean academic interest, not actual adherence or belief in its ideals). There is also something refreshing about a belief-system adhering to the principle of "do whatever you want, but you will deal with the consequences of your actions." However, I think the greatest force of attraction to me concerns the sheer level of creativity and difference this would bring to society, by which I mean, a social, political, and economic structure that has never been seen before in the industrialized world (does that mean I think it should be implemented? No, but it can yield some interesting hypotheticals).

Some of the greatest creativity regarding objectivism can be found in fiction, creating interesting worlds and societies that keep readers, viewers, players and whatever engaged. I'm not referring to what is considered Rand's masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged (honestly, it's not great). My primary reference with regard to this is the video game Bioshock. In this series, players find themselves in an underwater metropolis run on the tenets of objectivism, and it honestly does provide a very nuanced look at the philosophy. The lack of regulation encouraged widespread scientific and industrial innovation, but the people themselves became selfish, greedy, and manipulative. I contribute much of the awe generated by this city because of this belief system. So honestly, I find my greatest appreciation of objectivism can be traced to the fictitious worlds it creates for us to explore and examine human nature in. Game developers thought it was interesting enough to form the backdrop of a major video game, and I hope Bioshock's success encourages additional pieces of fiction based on  political philosophies (I know, I'm a nerd.).

Back By "Popular" Demand

People seemed to like this the last time I did it, so here's another free-association post.

What's the deal with airline food? What's up with that? Get it..."up" with that. 'Cause an it's food on a plane, and planes fly. Hahahahaha. Oh God, puns suck. What other form of humor can make people groan in pain? The in pain part's the crucial part, because people groan at horrendously offensive jokes, but that's more out of a "I can't believe that white guy in his late twenties just said that" (because more often than not, the comedians who tell those jokes are white guys in their late twenties [Daniel Tosh, Anthony Jeselnik]). Unless they're British, in which case they're usually a little older, but they go even further, yet still display more class than anybody else. 

Seriously, how funny are British people? They are just so sarcastic, and it's so awesome. I can definitely tell I'm English; I have such a dry sense of humor. Is there such a thing as a wet sense of humor? Why is being sarcastic considered dry? Backtracking, not a wet sense of humor; moist sense of humor. Even better. And that would be jokes that make people extremely uncomfortable while everybody else can laugh at their discomfort. 

I had a thought earlier this week: what if instead of casting Jon Hamm as Don Draper, it was Christopher Walken? I feel like he makes everything more entertaining, and if he was giving those semi-existentialist pitches, that would be so funny. As long as one of them was for a watch. A gold watch. What if Christopher Walken was also cast Walter White? 

SUPPRESSING FIRE!!!!!!!!!!

The more people get to know me, the more they realize that references to just about anything form the bulk of what I say. It's always hilarious when the reference is really obscure so nobody knows about it and when the reference is really really weird. Danger zone!

Are Happy Endings Unrealistic?

I was recently asked about some of my favorite movies, and as I was listing them, I had a realization; none of them had a happy ending. The more I thought about it, none of my all-time favorite stories, whether they be told through movies, television, books, anything, had a truly happy ending. I've thought about why that is, why I seem to have an aversion to having everything wrap up nicely, where everyone gets what they want and go on enjoying life, and I think I've decided: happy endings are unrealistic. They simply do not happen in real life the way they are commonly portrayed.

 My time on this Earth, and my study of the past have confirmed, and reaffirmed one crucial principle: life is not fair. People rarely get what they truly want. And one of my personal favorite sayings (just because it's so fun to say and watch people's reactions); life sucks then you die (I'll address this one later). A lot of this comes from the grand ambitions and plans people create for themselves, for their futures. And that's good. People should strive for the impossible/improbable; it provides a sense of direction, of motivation to push on through unpleasant stuff because it's just a stepping stone on the way to something great. These goals can help us find things we love, things we never thought we'd enjoy. And there's always the chance that we'll succeed, that we actually will get what we want. 

But probably not. As I look at some of the goals I've had (or have), the things I've wanted (or want), the more I'm filled with the thought; "If this works out, that would be awesome. But don't get your hopes up. Still try, still give it your all, but don't be surprised if it doesn't go anywhere." 

In the face of all this gloom, does that mean that "life sucks then you die?" No. There is so much to enjoy out of life. It just comes from the little things, the things we don't plan for, or expect. Things like a good meal, a fun night with friends, all that crap. It's great. It makes the rest of life worth living. My biggest wish is that I could appreciate these little moments more; despite the longshot goals I have, I still hold on to them and focus on them and keep trying to achieve them. I think there's a balance between appreciating life and trying to make it your own, if that makes sense, and I think I'm moving closer to it. I guess a better, modified saying then, would be "life sucks, except when it doesn't, and then you die."

Happy, uplifting post, am I right? (The correct answer is no).

An Exercise in Free Association

As I look back at my previous posts, the one thing that stands out about them is that they all were written under varying degrees of free association; I had a topic, and for the most part wrote out my actual thoughts/thought-process in relation to the aspect of the topic I was addressing. I find this process enjoyable, and that it usually yields entertaining results, so I figured that I would start out without a topic in mind and just write what comes to mind for a page or so. I figure this will either be amazingly awesome, or it will be a painful exercise that will never be attempted again. So for science, onward and upward (what?). 

If you think about it, all of the great projects were started with the mindset of "this will be legen-wait-for-it-dary", or "this is going to backfire horribly, somebody will die, and we'll be tried in the Hague." Why is the Hague called "The Hague?" It's just a city, like anywhere else, so why does it get a "the?" Why isn't it simply "Hague?" Those rebellious Dutch, that play by their own rules (or at least I think it's the Dutch. It might be in Belgium, but I'm pretty sure it's in the Netherlands. Even the country name does that too; might explain it.). If you look at the last two periods with the parenthesi in between, it kind of looks like a nose. That could be a fun game actually: what does this random collection of keyboards syllables look like to you? Actually no, that sounds awful, and anyone who attempts to make other people play that should definitely get dragged in front of the Hague for crimes against humanity by means of incredibly boring, poorly conceived and/or thought-out "games" (could you even call that a game?)

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. (Such a good movie. The minute I found out I was going to start a blog, I said to myself "at some point, you're going to make this reference, and hopefully people will get it). 

Well, I've taken up about a page talking about nothing. I know: I'll just make this the Seinfeld blog, a blog about nothing. Would honestly probably be amusing. I'm kidding of course, there are lots of things to talk about. I hope you at least got a laugh out of this post, and have become aware of some of the great unanswered questions in life.

Something, Something, Something Story Structure

When I look at a story, presented in any form, and try to determine if I will be interested in it, what first draws me in, and what ultimately has the greatest impact on my opinion , is the plot. Characters, setting, and all the other literary elements that you've learned about in English that make a good story a great story without you realizing it enhance the plot, but for me the initial attraction is always the plot, simply because; I love a good story. The more complex and twisted the better. 

Yet when one typically starts thinking about stories and storytelling, they probably think there's only a finite number of ways to tell a story, and all of them have been done before. But there are so many different ways that everyone knows; they just don't think of them because they are known subconsciously. When you start thinking about it, most of the fun in storytelling comes down to how you tell the story. Personally, I love changes to the traditional chronological story structure; it keeps the audience on their toes, and lets them gain a deeper understanding of all aspects of a story: plot, characters, setting, etc, etc. My favorite alterations are non-linear, reverse chronological, and multiple vantage points. These make the greatest changes to the traditional story structure, and consequently make it more interesting by providing the audience with a greater knowledge of events than the characters, increasing the tension and providing a more balanced view of things. 

Frequently, these types of stories allow for a high degree of complexity that not only serve to hook the audience, but give them greater insight. You know, probably. Maybe? I don't know. So many of my favorite books, films and TV shows alter the traditional storytelling format that I felt it was worthwhile to look at the their different formats and think about how they serve the story and make it so interesting. 

The Wonder Years

As any teacher will tell you, students are amazing. They can provide amazing insight that forever changes the way you view a topic, they can demonstrate an incredible dedication to learning despite a number of challenges outside the classroom, and sometimes they can just make you laugh. This is a story about a time a student made me laugh.

To set the stage, I was in a seventh grade social studies class at an area middle school, along with my good friend and colleague, "Don" (names have been changed to protect those involved) who was in a sixth grade social studies class, conveniently located next door to my class. After the lesson (I may have taught that day, I may have observed and assisted, I honestly don't remember), I walked out in the hall to talk with my cooperating teacher as he waited outside his classroom as the students left and the next period's class entered. I was waiting for Don, since we carpooled, because gas was not as cheap then, and we were poor college students. Don comes out as my teacher and I start talking to a student.

This started as a simple, generic conversation: "Good morning, how are you 'Susie'?" asked my teacher, "Mr. H". 

"Horrible, and I'm going to be horrible until I can get this note to 'Timmy'."

"What does it say?" asked Mr. H as Susie handed him a piece of paper.
 "It just says 'hey'."
"With a winky-face!"
Only a young, teenage girl would get so worked up over getting a piece of paper to a young, teenage boy that said "Hey ;)". I can not describe why I found this hilarious, but on that particular day, Don and I needed to just walk away, because we burst out laughing a mere thirty seconds later, and if Susie would have a horrible day just because she hadn't said "Hey;)" to Timmy, then image what would have happened to her day if two student teachers started laughing at the ridiculousness of her desires. Walking away also allowed us to sing "Susie and Timmy sitting in a tree" to each other (yes, we are horrible people; all good teachers are [maybe]). Teaching may not yield significant rewards of money, or respect, or money, but you can usually county on students to make you laugh.

Why is Quentin Tarantino so Amazing?

I am a huge Quentin Tarantino fan. I will say quite simply that he is one of my favorite directors of all time and has made a hefty portion of my favorite movies. I also don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that he is one of the most innovative directors, at least back in the 90's (because Pulp Fiction was so different from anything else). What is it about Tarantino's films that makes them so enjoyable, at least to me, because I know full well that his films are not for everyone?

Primarily for me, it has to be the unique tones so many of his films take: darkly comical, yet at the same time extremely dramatic and tense (this juxtaposition is best displayed in Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Basterds: Reservoir Dogs and especially The Hateful Eight were just dark and depressing while Django Unchained is somewhere between the two camps). A second asset of Tarantino films has to be the characters; some may be simple yet enjoyable cutouts, but most are incredibly complex characters that are difficult to classify as either good or bad. A third aspect, rarely used by other directors even though it makes things so interesting, is non-linear story-telling. The display of plot points out of chronological order allows for a new type of character development, and also encourages the use of multiple viewpoints of events, provided a greater degree of depth and understanding both of the events and of the characters themselves, as the way they view or perceive something can convey a lot of information to the audience. I could go on singing Quentin Tarantino's laurels, but honestly film choice varies so much from individual to individual. If you aren't bothered by excessive swearing and graphic violence, then I recommend giving these movies a try (start with Pulp Fiction).

Machiavellianism: Evil, or Tough Love?

One of my personal favorite political philosophers, and one who until recently had effectively been exiled from the field of political theory because he was perceived to be the embodiment of evil and a man who encouraged atrocities, is Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli lived in Renaissance Florence, serving essentially as a Secretary of State for the Florentine Republic and basically the Chief of Staff for the ruler of the city until the prior rulers, the Medici, returned to reclaim their power and exiled Machiavelli for serving the Republic. Machiavelli lived the remainder of his life on a small farm in Florentine territory, where he developed and compiled his theories based on his own experiences with Renaissance Italian politics (which were essentially Game of Thrones without the dragons). In his book The Prince, Machiavelli provides advice to a fictional ruler about how to maintain state power and stability. 

Thus, the political school of realism developed, a school which was built on the principle of "the ends justifying the means" even if those means involve murder, oppression, manipulation, and other hobbies of sociopaths. Machiavelli also focused heavily on the manipulation of public opinion, and argued that a ruler must be feared and respected by his subjects in order to make any progress. The main tenet of this philosophy stated that a ruler should not do anything unless it provided some benefit to the state. 

So yes, on the surface, it isn't that difficult to see why people viewed this philosophy as evil, since it did say it was okay to kill, torture, and enslave people. Yet what many fail to realize is that Machiavelli and other realists aren't advocating evil; they advocate pragmatism, and the advancement of state interests above individual ideology or global interests. They recognized the need to abandon failing policies in favor of something else; examining realist politicians reveals this to be true. Otto von Bismark, a prime example of a more modern realist, unified Germany after manipulating the French in to starting a war and invading German territory. Yet he also recognized the need to provide basic civil liberties, civil rights, and similar protections to all citizens to encourage loyalty to the state and prevent disorder, chaos, and anarchy (another French Revolution). Machiavelli's beliefs can be understood better when looked at alongside the political landscape of Italy at that time; constant warfare, discontent amongst the lower classes, and frequent power struggles between political rivals (which were more often than not deadly). Given this environment, it makes sense why he would support methods that would increase stability in the region; nobody benefits from instability.

So why do I like Machiavelli and realism? It stems from my appreciation of their resolve to advance society's long-term interests at the expense of short-term gains that can result in instability: it is better to conserve your ice cream so you have some for tomorrow than make a  huge sundae today, have no ice cream for tomorrow and be executed by your friends when they realize they have no ice cream. (Best analogy ever: ice cream explains realist politics!) My admiration for realism also comes from its advocation of pragmatism. Personally, I believe modern society has become blinded by ideals, resulting in an inability to compromise, and thus an inability to resolve the problems that will inevitably arise from circumscribing to one set of ideals (no matter what it is, extremism and refusing to compromise are not good). While I recognize that many of the means Machiavelli advocated are, thankfully, no  longer necessary to preserve order, I still respect his end goal; a peaceful, stable society where all are able to live prosperous, comfortable, and free lives. (Yes, he did actually believe in republican government, though only when he felt society was educated enough to effectively maintain it [where have we hear that before?(Jefferson)]).

As actors become more acquainted and trusting of each other, one of the questions they will inevitably ask of each other is "what is your dream role?", "who do you most want to play?". At first glance, the question may seem innocuous, yet it is actually an incredibly deep an personal inquiry if one stops to think about it. If they are anything like me, they gravitate more to the characters they can relate to, but allow them to explore a different side of themselves; basically, a different version of themselves, one in which many traits are shared yet manifest themselves differently. Ultimately, this can either make an actor feel more comfortable with himself or it can inspire an actor to change something about himself.

Given the fact that I brought up the question, it seems only fitting, and should come as no surprise, that I will answer it. I most want to play Antonio Salieri from Peter Schaffer's Amadeus. (This is excluding musicals, as they tend to distort things because the quality of the music and the character's songs can affect the decision). For those unfamiliar with the play, it follows the fabled rivalry between classical composers Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Antonio Salieri from Salieri's perspective. Salieri serves as the official court composer for the Austrian emperor, and promises God he will devote his life to Him if He makes him a great composer so he may use his talent to praise and worship God. Salieri is a highly respected figure in Viennese society, gives frequently to charity, tutors many pupils in music for free, and remains faithful to his wife (an impressive achievement for upper class men at this time). When he is introduced to Mozart, and finds him to be unfaithful, classless, and immature yet infinitely more talented than himself without any effort, Salieri snaps and eventually renounces his promise to God, vowing to destroy Mozart to spite God for giving him the desire to be a composer and the knowledge to recognize talent and genius, and denying him from even a fraction of Mozart's ability. Salieri violates all his vows and ruins Mozart's career, leaving him penniless; Mozart eventually dies in poverty, while Salieri's works fall from popularity and the world leaves him to die in obscurity. 

The natural follow-up question would be "why do you want to play Salieri?". Other than the excellent writing and plot, I find Salieri to initially be a sympathetic character who becomes steadily unlikable as he descends further and further in to his bitterness and spite; yet the entire time, he is understandable, allowing the audience to relate to him. I recognize my own traits of ambition and desire for self-actualization, and share his distaste when anything comes in between me and the achievement of my goal. When it becomes apparent that I will fail to achieve a goal, I do get angry and upset, but eventually these emotions subside and I move on to something else; I will clarify that I have never had my lifelong ambition thwarted by a person I despise, and I can only imagine the fury and contempt such a slight would bring. Yet I do recognize the desire to strike back against those we deem responsible for our failure, and while Salieri took it to the ultimate extreme by declaring war against God, the base desire for revenge and restitution is natural in all humans; this particular character simply chose to act on it. In truth, while I do believe I can recognize my attraction to playing the character of Salieri as a form of living out a strike back against the universe for a slight, more than likely there are other factors at play: my love of history, my appreciation for classical music, and my love of playing the bad guy most likely also act as influences. I highly recommend Amadeus to any theatre-lovers, and hope that my fellow performers can learn more about themselves by examining their favorite roles as I have.

Blog overview

So today, despite my relative technological handicap, or rather technology's innate desire to refuse to function properly whenever I attempt to use it, to the complete puzzlement and amusement of observers, I managed to start a blog with no troubles at all. Very shocking. Regarding the content of this blog, I will attempt to adequately address my major interests in some way or another: history, politics, literature, theater, film, education, and my own writings. No, I will not incorporate pieces from my novel for any number of reasons, but any other form of self-contained writing I do will probably wind up here in some way or another (and by that, I mean things that people would actually find interesting and not think"why would anyone write about that" when deep down they probably know it was because someone said "you have to write about that because"). The end.