#gets the complexity of social issues on a human level; great cast some great bits in the script

[thisbluespirit]

Films watched (2010s): MADE IN DAGENHAM (2010) dir. Nigel Cole; screenplay by William Ivory. Starring Sally Hawkins, Bob Hoskins, Miranda Richardson, Geraldine James, Rosamund Pike, Andrea Riseborough, Jaime Winstone, Daniel Mays & Richard Schiff.

"What do you think this strike's all been about? Oh yeah. Actually you're right. You don't go on the drink. You don't gamble, you join in with the kids, you don't knock us about. Oh, lucky me. For Christ's sake, Eddie, that's as it should be! You try and understand that. Rights, not privileges. It's that easy. It really bloody is."

[ffverr]

New Storm (2024) interview by Murewa Ayodele!!

Remember to pre-order Storm (2024). Issue one comes out on October 2nd!

Main scoop infos:

First info....there....may be...a condom involved??? It's at time stamp 15 minutes so I'll let you interpret this as you wish, I'm kinda floored at this 😭

Ayodele loves maggot but also gateway and manifold because of their mentor relationship. (Great news for manifold heads🙏)

In the first issue of Storm (2024), she is TRULY ALONE. Her sanctuary is the size of five blocks but she is all alone. The solo will explore why she has chosen to go solo and how she will come back to being more "social" or connected.

Ayodele loves Storm because she's complex (more so than wolverine) due to the fact that she can be dangerous, vicious and very adaptable ( because of street background) but it doesn't necessarily make her cold,harsh and lacking a sense of settling down (contrary to Logan). She can still be ambitious. She can slow down and smell the roses.

Again, in this story, Storm(2024) is not just focusing on Ororo, it's truly working on making her a solo hero, akin to Spider-Man.

He counts down the main flaws of great solo heroes, and how they are not all well balanced. Then asks the question, is Storm able to be a great solo hero while being so awesome and perfect or does she need a bit of unbalance-ness/damage ?

He found her Nimrod fight during Fall of X very cool!

He doesn't like the writing approach of powerful superheroes that focuses only on the power level. He enjoys approaching story lines with super strong characters from a more emotional point of view. "Some things might not hurt you but they may break your heart"-Ayodele (so a focus on stakes outside of the hero's control)

There are marvel characters way beyond omega so Storm is not all that safe 👀.

Handling the double appearances (solo and Avengers) is complex but also interesting so some things will be left for McKay to handle, such as T'challa, but scripts might adapt as avengers develops.

In Issue 2 she will be visiting a secret super hero hospital she has access to now because of her avengers card! She'll be meeting unknown marvel superheroes.

Being an Avengers brings her important media coverage now! What will she do with it? Tell the truth that is costly or lie to save people? We will get more exploration of the consequences of the things she says because she's a public figure.

When it comes to X-Men Ayodele naturally gravitates towards writing into Storm (2024) character of color despite having other faves. He hints at the fact that most of the current cast isn't white.

His favourite marvel sorcerer is Doctor Voodoo mainly because of the dark magic aesthetic. So to explore Storm's magic side, doctor voodoo instead of Dr. Stranger of Wanda is a more interesting choice because of cultural links.

Will be using actual Yoruba spells he knows in the book! (Interesting spells description in issue 2 to be seen!)

There will be a villain with an African mask/voodoo aesthetic! Going to get into authentic black magic aesthetic !!!

There will be references to Storm's relation to the character Eternity during her fantastic four era. He was housed in her body for a moment so Ayodele will talk about the impact it had on her.

On arakko:

It's an experience that wasn't a complete success and she learns from that. Now she will try to work with a more diverse group of people, as in all kinds of 616 marvel communities, humans, mutants, alien immigrants, super powered people that aren't superheroes etc...

She might crash and burn in this new experience because she's trying to be even better than before. That's where the tension resides.

Because Ayodele was plotting the first few issues during the ending of X-Men Red and Resurrection of Magneto, Craig of NASA's fate is still uncertain in Storm (2024). Ayodele says that hopefully we will touch on what happened between them (most likely hinting at the end of their relationship). Basically, we're figuring that out as we go but they're probably not together anymore.

On working with Lucas Werneck:

When he learned he was working with him, he went back to add more stuff in his 3 first issues because of his art! (Making the visuals more dramatic but also, adding more casual looks!!)

Wants to pull off playing around with patterns (African prints) on clothes instead of typical plain colours clothing in comics!

There is a true casual looks focus in this solo + Different hair styles! An alternative design is also planned for her main costume, either more flamboyant or combative depending on the threats. (An alternative "the ships are down" costume was confirmed in the earlier podcast)

Overall he is very happy about the direction of this story!

PLEASE everyone listen to this interview with Storm's solo writer Ayodele. He is so incredibly sweet and we are in for a treat!

Remember to pre-order or buy Storm (2024), issue #1 coming out on October 2nd!

Some scoop infos:

Rogue will make a cameo

African influences in clothing, food, speech will be more important

Ororo's private life and struggles are put in the foreground (comparison with iron man's personal struggles in solos contrasted with efficiency in teams)

There will be a secondary costume meant for tougher situations!!!!!

Wardrobe scene and diverse kenyan patterned robes

Ororo gets a pet!

"Third time is the charm" about her meeting with Doom which is compared to international negotiations 👀

Mainly putting down the basis for her to be a perfect solo hero because she's already a perfect team hero, but going solo will reveal cracks and flaws that are different !

Overall more daily casual scenes and challenges with overarching bigger than life villains!

Maggot may also appear?

Three words to describe the solo: Emotional/sad, bittersweet and action packed!

[parasite-core]

@aggressivewolfstarshipper Thank you so much for the OC questions :) I hope you don’t mind I answer them here, it got a bit long to answer in chat.

When does each OC go to bed?

Aiden: Is a morning person by necessity. He goes to bed early and gets up early. He had a lot of work to do daily, starting early and lasting for much of the day. He would fish early in the morning at dawn, help with mending tools and making new ones, and lend a hand with farming or hunting when needed.

Lyra: Is a deep sleeper who would be a night owl and late riser if she could get away with it, but is generally woken up early to help with chores around the house, sewing and mending, and taking care of the animals.

Ceron: Huge night owl. He loves nothing more than the quiet hours in the dead of night when nothing is expected of the few people still awake, and he can peacefully read his books or work on his research uninterrupted.

Dawn: Neither a night owl nor an early bird by virtue of living underground with no sense of day or night. Her people simply sleep when they’re tired. The fact that different people have different natural sleep cycles works in their favor, since some people will always be awake when others are asleep, so there’s always someone with eyes open for a possible Diaske attack.

Where do they live?

I’m going off where they grew up, because a few of them end up unable to return home early in the story so some of this changes early on.

Aiden and Lyra: The Valentia siblings grew up in a small coastal village called Grymora. It’s a self sufficient little village that doesn’t have much contact with the larger cities to the north due to the danger Diaske raiding parties present to travelers moving between towns. Much of their livelihood is made from fishing and farming.

The village is kept safe from the Diaske raids because once a decade they draw lots and sacrifice a dozen people between the ages 16-60 by throwing them into the Abyss for the Diaske to take. These sacrifices keep the Diaske appeased. It’s considered the highest act of cowardice to run away from your duty if you’re chosen, and it’s also the most noble act to volunteer to be chosen. Those who volunteer exempt the rest of their family from the lot for that decade’s drawing, and this is often chosen by people nearing 60 who don’t want to put their younger family members in the line of danger.

They’re led by a council of elders, who are all people who have lived past the age to be eligible for sacrifice. ‘Strangely’ it seems some families make it to this age more often than others, which has created an unofficial ruling class within the village.

Ceron: Ceron grew up in the largest human city on the continent Tymprase. It’s been able to reach a higher level of prosperity than the smaller villages because it’s under the direct protection of the Twilisk, who keep the Diaske raiders at bay. Unlike the smaller towns, people in Tymprase can travel to trade with other human settlements, as followers of the Order of Twilight can get members of the Twilisk to escort them safely outside the city walls. The city is dedicated to learning, science, and the growth of humanity.

In exchange for their protection, the people of Tymprase follow the edicts of the Twilisk. While the majority of people in town are just regular people going about their business and casually following the Twilisk as much or little as they feel is socially acceptable, there’s a very large portion of people fully dedicated to the teachings of the Twilisk, and anyone with any sway in the city is a follower. The Order of Twilight is the most powerful group in town, the Shineblood at the head of the city’s temple is the closest thing to a ruler they have. The goal of members of the temple is to master themselves enough to be seen as worthy to ascend by the Twilisk, to be taken to the Isle of Twilight to become Shineblooded themselves, and return as something more than human. Only a select few have ever been chosen, and even fewer have ever returned, but the promise of self actualization and power beyond human comprehension keeps people reaching for this goal.

Dawn: Dawn is from The Abyss. Specifically a small settlement called Jra’Starr, settled by Shadowblooded rebels who call themselves Elves, in reference to an ancient story of a race of immortals said to have been sent by the Twilisk at the dawn of time to drive the Diaske to the Abyss. This settlement is made up of former humans who became trapped in the Abyss for one reason or another, and who eventually succumbed to becoming Shadowblooded out of their hatred and desire for revenge against the Diaske in the Abyss who tortured and hunted them at every turn. They took the name of those who bested the Diaske once before, and swore to become the avengers of humanity within the Abyss. The majority of them have no desire to return to the surface anymore, in part because they fear their new forms will be hideous to former loved ones, and in part because their desire to destroy the Diaske has become so integral to their being that the idea of leaving the fight to return home isn’t even an option in their minds.

Jra’Starr has little in the way of commerce or sustenance, as a rogue settlement in the heart of the Abyss. The elves primarily scavenge and hunt for food, although there are some edible fungi and roots that they’ve cultivated within their village to help ease the need for dangerous scavenging missions. All members of the elven people old enough to learn a weapon are trained as warriors and hunters by necessity, as they’re a small settlement in the heart of enemy territory, always one attack away from being wiped out.

Which ones have mental disorders they refuse to address?

This is a tough one, in part because these characters haven’t fully settled so answers to something like this might change, in part because I’m not neurotypical so I don’t think I’ve ever written a single wholly neurotypical character in my life (although I don’t always have the knowledge to say what a character would have in reality if they were to be diagnosed with something), and in part because of the setting. They’re not in a setting where mental disorders are treated well, especially in the human society, so even if they knew and had the right language for it, it would be difficult to seek legitimate help. A lot of this is because of humanity following the Twilisk, who believe emotions are a weakness and a poison, so many mental disorders are waved off by followers of the Path of Twilight as the person’s weakness and inability to better control their mental state, rather than being taken seriously as something they have no control over.

For instance Lyra and Aiden’s mother has severe depression, but is considered anywhere from lazy to cursed rather than being given the sympathy and help she needs, and as a result Lyra ends up in some difficult situations without her mother’s help, because her mother isn’t in a fit mental state to be the mother Lyra needs. This also causes Lyra and Aiden to mask any similar symptoms they might have, in fear of being treated the same, which wears on a person over time.

Ceron has a lot going on in his head and wouldn’t go looking for help for any of it. He was raised in the Order of Twilight temple, so he was submerged from a young age in the teachings that emotions are dirty evil things that humanity needs to purge to ascend to greater heights. He isn’t good at controlling and masking his emotions at all, he wears his heart on his sleeve whether he wants to or not, which causes him a lot of self loathing and guilt, because he’s trying his hardest to live up to the Twilisk’s edicts but still falling short. He feels like anywhere from a failure to a monster depending on the day, which makes him try even harder to hide his feelings, which in turn inevitably leads to his emotions exploding when it’s too much and him circling back around to feeling terrible about ‘losing control’.

Aiden and Ceron both have some level of anxiety. Ceron’s is more generalized anxiety, while Aiden’s is more about how others view him. Aiden has a great deal of self doubt he masks by trying to act tougher and braver than everyone else, because it tears him apart to even think someone might think he’s a coward like his father. Lyra and Aiden both have some level of abandonment issues from their father leaving. Aiden shows it more, becoming a bit clingy with people he gets close to and stressing when they leave, whereas Lyra bottles it up and gets distant when she starts getting scared she’s going to be abandoned. Essentially beat them to the punch of cutting ties, make it on her own terms in her perception.

Dawn is probably the most well adjusted of the main cast, but she was still taught as a child how to be a warrior and that fighting the Diaske is the most noble cause she should always strive for, so there’s definitely still some issues there. Probably some PTSD from fighting and killing from a young age, and a bit of a dangerous hero complex, if nothing else.

[aion-rsa]

The Watch Controversy Explained: How Different is the Show From Discworld?

https://ift.tt/355lRyx

This article has been kept as spoiler-free as possible, but since it discusses differences between the Discworld books and The Watch TV show, there will be discussion of changes to characters and setting, and some vague allusions to plot.

Let’s say one thing first and foremost: if you’ve never read any of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld books, and you like quirky, funny SFF television, you’ll probably enjoy BBC America’s new show The Watch. It’s genuinely funny, well-acted, and well-made, even if it does have an obviously-television-sized CGI budget.

Here’s the problem though: if you are a fan of Pratchett’s Discworld books, on which the show is (very loosely) based, you’ll spend most of your first watch-through scratching your head in confusion.

The level of controversy around this new adaptation is unusual. Any book to screen adaptation always involves a certain amount of changes to the source material, because that’s simply in the nature of shifting something to a different medium. There will always be some fans who disapprove of any changes whatsoever, but the majority will generally grumble about a few irritations but enjoy the show anyway, and accept it as a new version of the story.

The controversy around The Watch, however, goes far further than a few fans grumbling because Glorfindel has been replaced with Arwen and Tom Bombadil has been cut. The series hasn’t even been released yet, but reactions of shock and surprise have followed the trailers, as a result of the sheer scale of the changes made to Pratchett’s world. Pratchett’s daughter Rhianna diplomatically summed up the situation on Twitter as, “it’s fairly obvious that The Watch shares no DNA with my father’s Watch. This is neither criticism nor support. It is what it is.”

Now that the first few episodes have been released to the press, there’s a bit more opportunity to survey just how substantial the changes are. Are they really that extensive? Well, yes and no. But mostly yes.

First of all, the series is not adapting the plot of any specific Watch novel, but taking elements from at least two of them (Guards! Guards! and Night Watch) and creating a new plot arc. This is a fairly sensible idea, in itself – there’s a case to be made for a series that tells a broad range of stories, with plots based on the novels. This also allows the setting to reflect some of the later additions to the city of Ankh-Morpork.

However, the plots of the two novels being used are not only fused together, they are substantially changed (Vimes and bad guy Carcer Dun now grew up together in an orphanage, for example, and sadly it is no longer the secretive Elucidated Brethren of the Ebon Night trying to summon a dragon). Some of the new elements added, including substantial references to Arthurian legend not present in the books, are also rather odd, leaving the viewer who knows the Discworld wondering just what’s going on here.

Character-wise, there’s at least one character that could almost have leaped from the pages of the book. New recruit Carrot Ironfoundersson is by far the closest to his book counterpart in the series, although possibly the explanation that his name refers to his tapering body rather than his red hair should have been left out, since actor Adam Hugill is tall but not especially muscular. Whether his backstory will also be the same, only time will tell.

Other characters clearly have bits of their original DNA in them. Vimes is reasonably close to his book counterpart, though the decision to have all the actors use their own natural accents does mean that people who grew up together have somehow managed to develop entirely different regional accents. The Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socio-economic unfairness is one of Pratchett’s best bits of socially conscious satire and is reproduced more or less in full, which is nice.

Lady Sybil Ramkin is an interesting case. Her general characterization has echoes of her book counterpart, but instead of being a somewhat reclusive upper class animal enthusiast, she’s now a weapon-wielding vigilante who has been given a tragic backstory and is considerably more of an action heroine than in the novels. Actress Lara Rossi also has a slim figure and is fairly young, as opposed to her book counterpart’s bigger curves and middle age, and she has lost some of her more deep-seated inhibitions (though her hair is still a wig, we’re glad to say). Still, her general attitude is not a million miles away from the Sybil books fans know, her sheer upper class confidence shining through in a familiar way.

Read more

Books

Terry Pratchett’s Discworld: Revisiting the Sky Adaptations

By Andrew Blair

Books

Terry Pratchett’s Influence On the Good Omens TV Show

By Kayti Burt

Some of the changes made to the book characters’ physical descriptions help to diversify the cast. Pratchett’s Discworld is a bit dominated by white male characters, so it’s not surprising that a couple of characters have been gender-flipped, in addition to the show casting racially diverse actors. The gender-flipping of Lord Vetinari might reasonably result in some fan disappointment as he is described so vividly in the books and readers might have a very clear mental image of him. But overall, changes to race or gender are usually not insurmountable for fans, and there are good reasons for those changes.

So far, then, all of this sounds like the sort of changes that might be expected from a novel to screen adaptation. There are adaptations that might stick more closely to their originals, but this would be nothing out of the ordinary.

But there’s more.

The character changes go on and on – Angua is officially still the same species, but her often-described long flowing hair is absent and she is physically tiny. The nature of her species has also changed substantially, following a more common and angst-filled recent template seen in many other shows, rather than Pratchett’s more complex depiction (Angua’s feelings about her family and nature being a major theme of The Fifth Elephant).

Angua is at least still the same basic species though, unlike her colleague Cheery Littlebottom. In the books, Cheery is a dwarf, but in the show, they are a human. The motivation for this change may have been well intentioned. Discworld dwarfs all identify as male, whether they are biologically male or female, and those who are biologically female have secondary masculine characteristics like facial hair and so on. Cheery goes against dwarf convention by openly identifying as female, wearing skirts and high heels and make-up and using feminine pronouns, eventually changing her name to Cheri. So she is, essentially, transgender, except in a fantasy way that doesn’t exactly map on to any real life situations. This is very characteristic of the 1990s tendency to address LGBTQ+ issues through fantasy and science fiction ideas rather than directly (see also some of Star Trek’s Trill episodes).

It’s possible that the decision to make Cheery a human, played by non-binary actor Jo Eaton-Kent, rather than a fantasy metaphor, came from a desire not to offend anyone by hiding behind fantasy tropes, combined with a desire to cast a non-binary actor in the role (the number of non-binary available actors with dwarfism being, presumably, quite low). 

However, this does have the side effect of substantially changing Cheery’s character. Cheery/Cheri clearly identifies as female – Cheery in the show appears to be a transgender woman, as the first episode has them clearly state a preference for feminine pronouns, but the show’s publicity states that Cheery is non-binary and uses they/them pronouns. They are no longer agitating for change among their own particular community (of dwarfs), nor do they have any regular dwarf characteristics (love of bread, etc.). Cheery in the books continues to sport a full beard because she is a dwarf and its culturally significant to her, while Cheery in the series is horrified by the thought of a beard, so their non-binary gender identity has also subtly shifted.

All in all, the change probably comes from a good place, but it is somewhat distracting for book fans, who may see little connection between the two versions of the character. The series also doesn’t include a single dwarf character, which is very odd – in addition to Cheery, there are several dwarf Watchmen in the books, most prominently Lance-Constable Cuddy, who could have been included in the series (Warwick Davis would have made a great Cuddy).

Also missing in action are two of the main characters from the Watch, Sergeant Colon and Corporal ‘Nobby’ Nobbs. Perhaps this exclusion sums up the way the series simply doesn’t seem to represent or “get” Pratchett’s Watch in any meaningful way. Unlike the new television characters, Colon and Nobby are not action heroes. They are heroes of another kind, and they carry out acts of bravery in different ways, whether by shooting at a dragon, going undercover dressed as washerwomen, or just providing Vimes with the right information at the right time. While they represent some of the worst the Watch has to offer – racism, or rather speciesism, and corruption – they are also a handy reminder of the Night Watch’s humble origins, and a rich source of comic relief (fulfilling pretty much the same role as Hitchcock and Scully in Brooklyn Nine Nine). The Watch without them is incomplete.

Even more distracting than the character changes are the widespread changes to the setting. The Assassins’ Guild’s form, style and function are quite different to the books’ version. Ankh-Morpork also appears to be situated in the middle of a desert, which is distinctly not the case in the novels. Pratchett’s city is a blend of London, New York City, and Rome, and is surrounded by the fertile Sto Plains, and in Jingo, our heroes travel to a desert country, where the culture is markedly different from their own. We can only assume that this was a budgetary decision. The series was filmed in South Africa, so the desert sequences are a combination of location filming and CGI, and presumably much cheaper than trying to recreate a European plain.

Most distractingly of all, however, the series seems to have moved into a sort of blend of science fiction and urban fantasy. Each episode opens with the text ‘Somewhere in a distant secondhand dimension’, suggesting science fiction, while set and costume design have an urban, contemporary look, with electronic devices and lighting readily available, characters wearing bomber jackets, and elements of modern culture, including punk rock and old people’s homes.

This is a problem because the Discworld started out as spoofs of sword ‘n’ sorcery paperback fantasy books. The stories were deliberately set in a very familiar High Fantasy-style pseudo-medieval world, and a world which remained stubbornly pseudo-medieval for a long time despite occasional invasions of rock music, moving pictures, and shopping malls. 

There were always odd bits of magically-driven technology in the Discworld, like cameras (with images painted very quickly by imps) and dis-organizers (also driven by imps). Towards the later parts of the series the world did start to evolve into something a little bit more early modern, with the permanent introduction of clacks machines (for sending telegrams), printing presses and even, in the penultimate book, steam trains. The first Watch book Guards! Guards! even includes, as the series does, a brightly lit neon sign – but it is clearly stated to be a magical item. So there is some precedent for the style of the TV series, but the extent of the punk rock aesthetic it adopts is surprising.

Discworld is not the only property to be radically reimagined for television. Other adaptations have taken a fair few liberties too, and some have even undergone the same sort of radical re-tooling as the Discworld has here. For example, Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories have been reimagined in similarly extreme ways, including updating the setting, and gender-flipping Holmes’ sidekick Watson.

But the Sherlock Holmes stories have been adapted many, many times in different ways over the years. Adaptations that follow the books more closely are easily available, so there’s more appetite for something new and different. The original stories also, importantly, weren’t period pieces when they were written – they were contemporary detective stories. There’s a certain logic, then, to updating the setting and creating a new, contemporary, crime story rather than a period drama.

But the Discworld is a created secondary world, and a fairly recent one (the books were published 1983-2015). There have been a handful of screen versions, both live action and animated, but none of the Watch books. There seems no pressing reason to reimagine it in this way.

The truth is, to get fans excited about a book to screen adaptation, you have to show them something that feels like it’s leapt off the page. The Lord of the Rings film adaptations and the early seasons of Game of Thrones, for example, both made changes to the source material, but when you looked at a few minutes’ footage, you could tell which character was which and they felt recognizable. This doesn’t mean they have to be exactly like their book counterpart – Frodo was 50 years old in the book, whereas Elijah Wood wasn’t even 20 when he started filming. But when fans watched the first trailer for The Fellowship of the Ring, all those years ago, they could pinpoint exactly which character was which from a few seconds’ footage, and were (mostly) overjoyed to see the characters they loved come to life.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Ultimately, the issue with the series is this: if you changed the names, it would not be recognizable as an adaptation of Pratchett’s Discworld stories. For anyone who hasn’t read the books, this is no problem – but it’s a strange decision, for fans of the books will have little incentive to watch something that takes the names of beloved characters, but doesn’t include anything recognizably adapting the stories they love. In the end, if the resemblance between books and series becomes so slim you can barely see the relationship between them, you’re no longer watching an adaptation, but a new series that’s pinched some beloved characters’ names.

The Watch premieres Saturday, Jan. 3 at 8 p.m. ET on BBC America.

The post The Watch Controversy Explained: How Different is the Show From Discworld? appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3rJMUJk

[trollmarket-dog]

See you had to say something about Barbara’s behavior, and now you’ve got me thinking about Barbara’s behavior, and my literally favorite thing is taking behaviors given in canon anything and working backwards to try and find the source, and I bet you I could peg her backstory like a fly to a wall if there was any thought put into it. 

People like to gripe that Barbara has WAY too nice of a house for a single mother, even a single doctor. I’m also too lazy to find the clip, but I’m pretty sure that when Toby talks about Jim’s dad to Blinky, he mentions that he and his girlfriend ran off to some resort together, which means that’s something he could afford, or was in social circles to meet someone who could afford it. Barbara gets her son a kitchen appliance for his birthday, which can be very expensive, and her complaints about the vehicle were less about price and more about his safety. Her house is also WAY to clean to be kept up by a teen, even one as responsible as Jim, especially when things get more destructive or busy, so she probably has a maid come in every once in a while to scrub grout. 

Barbara lives an upper middle class life, at worst, on a salary that’s easily 350,000 bucks a year, and claims every now and again that she keeps needing to pick up hours.

She not only lives at this quality of life, but she’s used to it enough to worry when it’s threatened rather than downsize in REALLY OBVIOUS ways, so she probably comes from a place of decent wealth.

This is important. 

She also looks very young for her age, and her marital split could be blamed on her need to focus obsessively on her career, but if Jim’s father was anything but absolute scum and actually had the bond with his son that the show claims, that’s the sort of thing that can be worked around successfully, even if it’s breaking up and co parenting. 

But if Jim’s father and Barb were just completely incompatible, say… two young kids who thought they were romeo and juliet and married young without feeling out a relationship first, then yeah, Jim was at about the right age for that to be falling apart.

So she come’s from a place of wealth, with a great big house and a nice car and a really great foundation and what I’m saying here is that Barb has probably never ever at all been without financial support in her life.

And she married young into a loving marriage and when that split her son IMMEDIATELY took up the emotional role that her husband once took.

yes, I’m saying that Jim was her emotion husband I’m trying to make it sound not gross but there it is. 

Which yeah it’s a great narrative, lonely mom and awesome son come together after being abandoned by the world/a guy but from a real life perspective it’s not good. But ultimately Barb has also never been without some kind of emotional support either. Barb has never learned to really function on her own

And Barb… is not a giver, she’s a taker. She was raised right, that’s for sure. She’s aware of how much she’s taking up from other people. She knows she’s putting Jim in a position of responsibility she shouldn’t, but it’s necessary to keep their quality of life (again, a place of wealth, downgrading doesn’t occur to her at all) She also loves and lives for her job, but it’s ok as long as Jim is ok with it (she tells herself she’ll change it if Jim is ever not ok with it, but he’ll never not be ok with it, this is how he was literally raised) She knows she lets a lot of her emotional burdens off on Strickler with little reciprocation a lot, she states it right out in a lot of their one on ones, but he’s ok with it so, so is she. She doesn’t give, she takes, and her version of giving is “taking less if someone asks me to”

She knows she needs to give in relationships, but she’s always been so nurtured that she’s literally never learned to do that, and that’s especially apparent when Jim’s life starts to fall apart in the latter series.

Bringing back the awful term “emotion husband” (and I’d like to clarify here that I don’t mean this in any way as incestuous), it’s really apparent that Barb treats her son as an emotional equal (there it is, the better term!). The show makes no qualms about Jim having at least some degree in jealousy on Strickler taking up a space he once occupied in his own mother’s life.

And when Strickler enters her life and starts to fill her emotional needs in a much more gratifying way, and also probably any other needs she might have been craving in a relationship, safely, she now starts acting on all those promises to let her kid be a kid that she’s been telling herself all Jim’s life.

But again, Barb is very bad at giving.

She expects Jim to be the mature adult that she’s been treating him. She’s a doctor, but her mind never goes to a lot of the really bad places that she knows, as in probably has personal experience seeing as an upper class California doctor, that kids like Jim get drawn into shitty things like drugs and bullying and gangs all the time, but not her kid because he knows better.

She also expects Jim to be the kid he’s supposed to be, even though he’s never been treated this way. She’s finally giving him this, and his response is to pull away from it like it burns, and it’s frustrating.

Barb also very much perceives herself as the parental authority, because it’s never been questioned before. Of course her son is going to come to her with his issues, it’s her place as a parent. Except he’s never had the kind of issues he’d prefer she not be a part of so she doesn’t know how to get him to open up. Of course he’s going to respect her authority for things like grounding, except she’s let him have equal responsibilities and free run in the house and has absolutely no sway in setting his boundaries. Of course he should be ok with her dating his teacher, they had got along fine until that moment and he should recognize her ability to judge people (also on the side for complexity he’s always been supportive of her happiness and the abrupt turn around probably seems like a direct attack on this again, she tends to view Jim as an equal partner) 

So she’s making a conscious effort to treat her kid like a kid, gets frustrated when he responds like an equal, and then automatically responds like he’s an equal in turn (cold shoulder and such are BAD responses in equal relationships, but that’s where they typically show up, and Barb has the relationship fixing skills of a teenager because that all she’s ever needed)

I’m not saying she’s doing it on purpose or is stupid or bad. She actually seems more than aware of what she needs to be doing theoretically, but her very nature as a taker in relationships has never being questioned seriously, her lack of experience in stressful situations like this and in relationships in general, Barb just… doesn’t know what to do, and it’s all coming to a head at once. These are the kinds of issues that should have been dealt with a long time ago and at a very slow pace, and Barb just doesn’t know how to get there or how to even start.

And what’s sad is that in all this mess is that Jim is acting exactly as he’s been raised. He is essentially keeping house, and trying to keep Barb’s life stress free, but on a huge level by pushing her as far away from the danger and stress as he can. He’s forcing his home life to be as normal as possible for her, and he’s using her own logic of “it’s ok if it’s a bit sucky now we’ll work it out later when things are better” to justify his disregard of authority. He also views his mother as an emotional equal, and is sure she’ll understand when the time comes, so what she says now, like “you’re grounded”, it doesn’t matter.

tldr: Barb views her child as both and equal partner, and as a child under her authority, and there was literally no response Jim could have possibly made to her actions that would have justified both of those mindsets. She’s also got the relationship stress reactions of a 13 year old which only serves to upset her authority more. She means well, but just plain doesn’t have the skills as a parent or as an adult needed to respond the way she should be

(after point) On the final note of Barb never being without emotional support, I’m really interested in season 2 because of this. Either Jim will be back right away throwing away a good plot potential and nothing will change (BOOOOO HISSSSSSS), Barb will have to learn how to cope with being alone as a human being and have some personal growth just in time to become a better and more supportive parent (probably not, having an authority figure in his life that is no doubtingly against fighting to the death is against kid power fantasy rules)

Or she’s going to go running to the first sign of emotional support she can grab onto, and the reversal for the life merging spell suggests that she only looses her memories up until the point the spell was cast.

So her son is gone and the one person she was gradually relying on well, the latest memories of him were of tea and small meetings, the last date before the first kiss. The framing of his apologies and his agony when the spell was broken also hints that those will be embedded into Barb’s psyche and possibly reoccur. Strickler is probably a GREAT idea in her mind. I will not be surprised at all if she reaches out to him and convinces him to be part of season 2. not necessarily the healthiest choice, but it’s convenient for the plot!

---

holy shit dude you wrote a whole essay on this. first of all thanks cuz uh wow good job! 

also a lot of this you’re seriously not wrong on and i’m just like ‘yeaaaaahhh pretty much’.

[thekuroiookami]

Why Uraraka is my favorite BnHA character

Warning: this a sorta meta character analysis, but also mostly a rant. I got a bit emotional.

In part inspired by this meta by @lethesomething.

All good essays begin with a nice, broad philosophical statement that introduces the general argument you're about to push on the reader.

Here's mine: every successful story has behind it, in some form, a character you identify with. That's obvious, you say. Writing 101.

And I agree. But. How many characters do you actually remember identifying with?

I mean really identify with, on a soul-deep, cellular level. Not sympathize with. There's a big difference.

Take Bakugou, for example. Most people aren't going to identify with this guy. He's constantly high on rage, he has a superiority complex, he has next to no social skills, he's an out and out bully sometimes.  This is not most people. Sure, we can sympathize with him, imagine what it might be like to be in his position and then feel for him, but we can't ever be him.

And I don't know about you, but I certainly can't be Midoriya either. I can't constantly break myself for people I don't know. I can't put the masses of humanity above everything else. I might save a child or a kitten one day, and I would certainly not think twice if someone I loved was in danger, but I'm not heroic. Not many people are in the Midoriya sense. He's the main character, but he's the least relatable person in BnHA, I think. Which is fine, because shounen likes to take the underdog and the 1% character and give them a chance to be more.

But the readers belong to the 99%.

Which brings me to the real point of this post: the wonder that is Uraraka Ochako. 

Now, I know she's big in the fandom and plenty of people love her, she gets shipped with everyone but the kitchen sink etc.

She's still an underappreciated character.

I don't think people appreciate how wonderfully, utterly, normal she is. And how she is so much more of a hero for that.

I didn't particularly care for Ochako's character in the beginning. I didn't hate her, but she seemed like a two-bit airheaded love interest. That didn't really change until the sports tournament arc.

Aha, I hear you say. You like her because she's a badass.

She is indeed, but I like Ochako because she has one simple, pure goal: feed the family.

It's not a saintly goal. It's not a selfish goal. It's not even a new one. But it's one I can 1000% identify with. Everyone knows parents - family - are important. BnHA is chock full of examples of all the things that can go wrong when you don't have a true family to back you up. Todoroki, Shigaraki, to some extent Bakugou, and Midoriya as well. And for some reason, shounen (and media in general) tends to treat anyone with a normal, loving family as boring. As if wanting to support your parents - to show them the affection you received from them - is worthless in the face of grander schemes. As if there is a height chart for individual ambitions, and anything below "making history" falls short. As if wanting to love the people who love you isn't an ambition at all.

Uraraka's reason for becoming a hero - I need a salary to support my family - is initially presented as modest, and perhaps not quite as good a reason for becoming a hero. Even Bakugou's less-than-pure motives somehow are more acceptable, because he has a vision that will change the world, and the power to do it with. Ochako apparently has neither. Even she acknowledges this.

Another but.

This modest goal - a humble sparrow among the brilliance of peacocks, really - goes toe to toe with that grandeur and holds its own. BnHA is an ever shifting kaleidoscope of surprises. Uraraka, who wants what the ordinary person wants - to able to eat on a daily basis, and keep the people she loves happy - is not weaker than the powerhouse of intention that is Bakugou. She is more than equal, and he acknowledges it.

On the surface, the Uraraka-Bakugou fight is a way to call out inherent sexism, and a tool for character development. Uraraka is presented as more than a pretty face, and Bakugou wants more than just an easy win. Under that, however, is a clash of ideologies. It's the all-rounder vs the average person. The prodigy vs the student that doesn't do badly, but not great either. It's "I will be the best" vs "I'm putting in my best, and that's enough".

In some ways, not having an exciting goal is seen as the absence of a goal at all. I've had this happen to me several times. As a postgrad, interviewers, teachers, and the wider public like to ask to me what I want to do next. They expect some kind of high-achieving, Instagram tagline kind of answer. Like, "Oh yes, I would like to research this niche topic, write a thesis on it, and then spend my life doing an intellectually stimulating, socially useful profession." What I say is, "Oh, just a job. Any job in a museum." They then blink and nod with mildly disappointed expressions.

This is what happens to Uraraka as well. With the exception of Aizawa (because that man is godly), she is largely written off by the rest of the cast, even Deku, because she has more humble wants. Even though technically, no one has any reason to believe, until the sports tournament, that Deku is more useful than Uraraka. (He's not, really.)

Ordinariness, if it can even be called that, is not a handicap. It is a strength, a deep-rooted one. Uraraka's wants are no less solid than Bakugou's, no less powerful and ultimately, no less world changing. While Bakugou wins the fight, Uraraka doesn't lose the war.

In the long run, it even works out better for her. Ochako gets a mentor that helps her strengthen her existing skills and add new ones. Bakugou...gets some hair gel.

This is not to say that they are one note characters with a singular goal. Uraraka doesn't have to be the absolute best to achieve her ends, but she tries anyway. Because if you do something, you might as well do it well. Her internal crush-turned-rivalry with Deku is a product of this. She doesn't need to be number 1 hero or better than him to support her parents. Hell, she doesn't even need to be in the top ten. But she's here in the hero course, and if she's doing it, she's going to give it her all. Just like Bakugou, and Midoriya.

She's not a complex bundle of issues like Todoroki, and lots of us aren't. But she's not made of just one defining element, and neither are we. She doesn't need a dark backstory, or want to save the world, but she has the potential to become number one. Equally, if she decides that she doesn't want to be a top hero, she won't be any less heroic or badass than the others.

I think so too.

[thevideogamestudies-blog]

Enchantment? Enchantment!

    The Dragon Age series is definitely in my list of favorites, I have replayed the latest edition to the series, Inquisition, an embarrassing amount of times. Bioware did a pretty good job with adding lore and history from the other games into Inquisition, but not making it completely confusing and unplayable for those who have never touched the previous games. There is enough dialogue, writing, etc. that keeps new players in the loop, but if somebody doesn’t need any prior knowledge of the series to play Inquisition then why bother?

© BioWare

*** under the cut includes violence and blood of fictional characters and fictional creatures ***

 Synopsis

  Dragon Age: Origins takes place in fictional Ferelden during the 5th blight, “a period when darkspawn find and corrupt one of the Old Gods, which is transformed into an Archdemon and leads the horde to attack the surface world,” (Dragon Age Wiki). Your character is recruited by the Grey Wardens, guardians trained to kill darkspawn. After an attack on the Grey Wardens, the main character and his/her allies, Alistair, a Grey Warden, and Morrigan, an apostate mage, are searching for an army to help defeat the Archdemon and end the blight.

© BioWare 

Character Creation

   Players have a smaller selection of classes and races to pick in Origins compared to other RPGs. There are only 3 classes: mage, warrior, rogue, and only 3 races: elves, humans, and dwarves. Starting off your character will have general skills but learn more talents and specializations throughout the game from other characters or the menu. Each race has two different backgrounds to choose from, making each playthrough unique. Jeff Haynes observed in his playthrough, “Dragon Age provides a ton of customization without a level cap, so it's possible to take two characters with the exact same background and develop them in completely different ways.” Haynes later criticized this feature, “The largest issue that I had with the Origin feature is that some of the background elements fade away too easily as the game progresses, becoming little more than an afterthought. Simply tossing these endemic problems aside without any attempted mediation or resolution seems unrealistic and forced, and insults the plot of the game...a portion of the game revolves around uniting Ferelden against the Darkspawn, it would seem like you'd have to address these issues of racism somehow, especially if you happen to be an elven character. Simply tossing these endemic problems aside without any attempted mediation or resolution seems unrealistic and forced, and insults the plot of the game.”

Storyline 

    Dragon Age: Origins has an overwhelming amount of positive reviews about the story. Dave Snider commented in his review, “BioWare officially started calling Dragon Age: Origins the "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate II," you could almost hear a large sigh being let out from the role-playing contingent who worshipped that seminal game and have been disappointed time and time again by similar claims over the years,” Snider quickly eases the fanbase’s worries by adding, “After spending some 60 hours with Dragon Age, the only bit of soothing calm I can offer towards that worry is that this game is not only the deepest, most story-focused title yet from BioWare, but one you will instantly want to replay.” Origins has similarities to Bioware’s previous titles, such as a traditional fantasy setting populated by dwarfs, elves and humans with stereotypical fantasy lore and archetypes, “But just because it's familiar in spots doesn't mean that it's poorly executed. There are a lot of subtle touches--like the way humans from the neighboring state of the Orlesian Empire speak with a French-tinged accent--that help make the world work,” (Snider). Kevin VanOrd commented on the traditional setting as well, “Ferelden is a colorful and fascinating kingdom that takes enough cues from well-known fantasy tropes to be familiar, but bends enough conventions to feel original. Dragon Age features dwarves, but their caste-based society and the social paragons that rise above it twist the norms enough to keep you intrigued. Mages remain under the constant watch of templars, a restriction that doesn't sit well with those who view such policing as virtual slavery. The role of religion in human circles is of particular note. Chantries provide refuge to those worshiping the all-powerful Maker, and chanters recite the holy word near their houses of prayer.” “Dragon Age brilliantly combines the genre’s old-school conventions with a few modern twists to create one of the most addictive and expansive RPGs of its kind. Attempting to summarize the experience of Dragon Age in a few paragraphs is almost ridiculous given the depth of the game’s content,”stated another reporter, Joe Juba. 

However Jeff Haynes, IGN author, had a different take commenting, “The plot of Dragon Age is extremely rich with details that unfold over dozens of hours of play...The biggest issue that arises with the storyline of Dragon Age is that plot elements suffer from repetitiveness. Even though different cities house unique quest events, they all incorporate similar motivating factors – assassination, betrayal or murder. Even though the results of your actions vary, it can become a bit stale. Not every single city needs Macbeth, King Lear or other Shakespearean styled machinations to drive the action forward.”

© BioWare

Characters

The memorable companions and unique backgrounds and their witty remarks are what make Origins so great. There are many compilations of every sidekick’s banter on Youtube. “Characters are generally complex, defying the unrealistically simplistic labels of "good" and "evil," and the game is the better for it,” expressed Gerald Villora (sic). Nicolas Tan added in his review, “The side conversations between characters are also hilarious enough to make you stop in your tracks and listen, offering a welcome change of pace to the serious and grave task of slaughter and world-saving.” 

Combat

My personal take on the combat style was: “meh”. This was my first time experiencing this kind of combat in video games, and I am not that big of a fan, so I just keep the game on easy mode. Dave Snider observed, “You'll probably spend a good portion of time in pause mode, manually issuing commands to your entire group, especially if you're working with more than one mage or if you're the type to obsess over the survival of each party member,” he later added, “The combat in Dragon Age is where the game feels closest to its computer RPG roots. This is a classic "pause-and-command" type of game, and it comes with all of the difficulty and micromanagement...the game's boss fights, in particular, get extremely tough and require proper mana management, some well-timed potion-chugging, and a keen eye to watch out for scripted events.”

© BioWare

In The End

    Dragon Age: Origins may look a little ugly due to age and awkward animations, and the combat may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but the intriguing storyline, with interesting politics and debates within the world, and memorable characters who provide endless amounts of laughter makes the game well worth it in my book. Definitely put this game on your “to play next” list.

Works Cited

Haynes, Jeff. “Dragon Age: Origins Review - IGN.” N.p., 3 Nov. 2009. Web. 

    https://www.ign.com/articles/2009/11/04/dragon-age-origins-review

Juba, Joe. “Dragon Age Review: BioWare’s Return To Classic Form - Game Informer.” N.p., 5�� 

Oct. 2009. Web. https://www.gameinformer.com/games/dragon_age_origins/b/pc/archive/2009/10/05/review.aspx

Snider, Dave. “Dragon Age: Origins Review - Giant Bomb.” N.p., 3 Nov. 2009. Web. 

https://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/dragon-age-origins-review/1900-223/

Tan, Nicholas. “Dragon Age: Origins Review - GameRevolution.” N.p., 18 Nov. 2009. Web.

    https://www.gamerevolution.com/review/44937-dragon-age-origins-review

VanOrd, Kevin. “Dragon Age: Origins Review - GameSpot.” N.p., 3 Nov. 2009. Web. 

https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/dragon-age-origins-review/1900-6238631/

Villoria, Gerald. “GameSpy: The Consensus: Dragon Age: Origins Review - Page 1.” N.p., 3 

Nov. 2009. Web. http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/dragon-age/1041838p1.html

[jay-michaels-public-relations]

Article contributed to Five Star Arts Journal by Jay Michaels

Comic Books – like their characters – have a secret identity. The mild-mannered paper and ink funnies are also the next level of Greek tragedy or Shakespearean epic.

Comic Artists – like their characters – also have a secret identity thrust upon them. Hard-working children of immigrants throughout the sixties grabbing a job in a time when such things were scarce drew fun and fantastical stories about improbable human beings … and outer planet dwellers. These progression-of-image books have – thanks to Godlike advances in cinema and the paranoia of psychiatrists throughout the fifties and sixties have become the new da Vincis and Picassos.

Sadly, like their characters, these artists were always lauded for their work. their stories are the fodder of -well- comic books.

Ditko tells the story of Steve Ditko, a comic book illustrator virtually forgotten by the masses, but celebrated by comic book fans everywhere. Chronicling his rise in the comic book industry, Ditko was instrumental in Marvel’s success by co-creating two of comics most iconic characters, Spider-Man and Doctor Strange and several of DC’s silver age icons, Hawk and Dove, Shade the Changing Man, and the Creeper. Ditko also worked for virtually every other publisher of note including Warren, Charlton, Pacific, and Eclipse, co-creating other iconic characters like Mr. A, the Question and Blue Beetle. he also created some of the 1950s most startling imagery in sci-fi and fantasy comics. ironically, Spiderman was meant to be one of those fantasy one-shot characters for a comic book called Amazing Fantasy. Stan Lee, planning to cancel the poor-selling monster book, let Ditko draw one of those far-out characters for the last issue. The rest, as they say …

The Daydream Theatre and TheatreLab NYC present DITKO, a play written & directed by Lenny Schwartz on October 1 & 2 at 7:30pm Tickets: $15 in advance at Ovationtix.com and $20 at the door the location of TheatreLab is 357 WEST 36th STREET 3RD FLOOR – NEW YORK

Some actors have the honor of playing Hamlet, Romeo & Juliet, and Lear … others have a more lofty experience. Derek Laurendeau plays Steve Ditko; Dave Almeida dons a cigar for his role as Jack Kirby; Anne Bowman plays a mystic master – no, not Doctor Strange … Ayn Rand. And Geoff White takes the elevator to the floor ABOVE Mount Olympus as Stan Lee. The avengers assembled also include Samantha Acampora, Christopher Ferreira as Jerry Robinson/Dick Giordano (talk about Marvel AND DC), Mindy Britto, Emily Lamarre, and Timothy DeLisle.

At the New York Comic Con in 2010, Stan Lee entered the stage and someone from the back of the house screamed “YOU’RE A GOD, STAN”  We asked the cast … well is he? Well, are you? And what’s it like playing Gods.

Derek Laurendeau: 

To me comic books aren’t becoming a religion, they are one. As with most religions you have practices, prayers, meditations, and most of all stories that give the moral standards and practices of them. Comic books in their own way share many of these. Many people routinely make pilgrimages to the conventions or their comic book shops to share in the collective story telling of hundreds of artists and writers. The whole community (artists, editors, writers, fans, etc.) shapes these stories. The stories give us the hope and ability to cope with the world around us. The comics are also a mythology on their own. Superheroes are god like and while the stories can be bombastic, heroic adventures at the end of it all the heroes themselves are just as human as we are and through that relatability you can gain strength to overcome any difficulties. Also like most religions there are divisions that you see when stories adapt and change. Most recently the Miles Morales Spiderman comes to mind as an example of the rift that can divide comic fans.

“I feel like we’re not playing gods. Ditko, Lee, Kirby, and Robinson were humans just like us.”

They had their flaws and faults just like anyone would have. The fans may see them as these deities, but at the end of the day they were just men and women creating from their imaginations. They created these characters not knowing what would happen. The act of creation is what they knew best and by putting the work in and giving their art every bit of energy they had they made magic happen on the pages. I feel like my responsibility to the role is to show the humanness of these great people. Yes they created heroes that will not be forgotten any time soon. But Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby, Stan Lee, and Jerry Robinson all started at the same place behind a table with nothing but an idea, paper, and something to write and draw with. The truth is anyone can do what they did as long as you have passion and are committed one hundred percent to making your destiny happen. However I do feel an extra responsibility to Ditko since very little is known of him and for a lot of people seeing the show it was the first time they had ever heard of him. So i feel a duty to do my best to represent Steve as the sure minded, smart, and talented artist he was.

Geoff White, like the characters he plays (Stan Lee) was a bit more irreverent. 

Growing up in the 60’s, I was the usual comic book kid… I occasionally grabbed a Superman or Spiderman. I’ve always had a healthy respect for the art form, but as I began college and studying theatre, my focus changed and comics faded in my life Except for my many friends who  are avid collectors. But, as an Actor, I do feel the responsibility of being true to any character I portray, but obviously playing Stan in the city, next to the Comicon is a little daunting.  Fortunately, Lenny is a true Fan and an insightful Director and I truly feel the audiences will enjoy the ride as much as we do.

Dave Almeida plays another king. Jack “King” Kirby. The man attributed to some of the greatest comic book characters of all time – who never got the respect he deserved … until after his passing. 

We the public may consider these creative writers and artists “gods”, but I would guess that they just considered themselves just “working Joes”, and getting paid for their services, just like screenwriters, journalists and commercial artists did at the time. These wonderful people gave us role models without even realizing it; role models who change the minds and hearts of a post war generation and their children.

Christopher Ferreira playing two comic book legends shared his thoughts as well.

When I was in grade school at that time, comics were the safe place where social outcast bookworms could find comfort in fantastic stories about heroes and a fantasy world.  It was ours.  Now comics are everyone’s.  Now I’m the expert who pretty girls turn to to learn about this world of mythical legend.  Now I feel like the prophets of old, leading new followers to the wonderful teachings of pulp fiction legends. I absolutely feel a strong responsibility to accurately portray such legends as Jerry Robinson and Dick Giordano.  I met Jerry twice in the later years of his life at the San Diego Comic Con and I was so blown away by his intelligence, exuberant personality and humbleness.  He did so much important work to get creators the credit and recognition they deserved.  I can only imagine how he encouraged and helped Steve Ditko in his early days of coming into the comic book industry.  Jerry was such a force in the comic book industry.  So my goal in bringing him to life again onstage in this version is to show how human of a man he was.  Comic book creators are people who care about the human race, I feel.  They write stories that show the best humanity can be.  Creating heroes that they wish we all could be.    

Anne Bowman practiced philosophizing by saying this.

What comes to mind is how comic book characters are like religious icons, known all over the world. Before I did this show I didn’t realize how often I see Spider-Man in my daily life, in many places other than TV.  For example, I went to the beach with family a few weekends ago, and my friend’s five-year-old was wearing a Spider-Man t-shirt. I told him I was in a play about the man who drew Spider-Man, and his eyes got wide. I knew Spider-Man when I was his age, too. That’s pretty incredible. 

    Emily Lamarre and Mindy Britto looked up in the sky and had this to say:

Emily Lamarre: I’ve been thinking about this all day and haven’t really found an answer for this question. I’ve been an outsider to the comic book world and through Ditko I learned that Ditko was the real creator of Spider-Man. I think with why comic books are becoming a religion as people look up to these characters because they are strong, and brave. They even may pass down the stories of these characters to their children in hopes to take the lessons and ideals that they had and use them in real life. With the creators like Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Jerry Robinson, and Bill Finger, they created these characters and the world they live in for people to read and look up to.

Mindy Britto: To be honest, comic books are a bit of a new phenomenon for me. I feel that comic books offer an escape into another reality. Comics are always indicative of pop culture, reflecting both modern society and a new market of readers. Writers come up with religious back stories to keep the character current and provide relatability and depth. It makes sense that comic books are becoming a religion due to the complexity of the world that we live in and the desire to explore and uncover.

  =================

JAY MICHAELS, an indie film and live event producer and promotional executive, is considered an authority on comic books and horror movies. He is the host of “Terror Talk” on the burgeoning streaming station, Terror TV. Michaels, a notable presence in the world of independent theater and film as a producer and an actor, has been charting horror and science-fiction on film and television and appraising comic books and other ephemera since 1973. He is also a judge for the Boston Sci-Fi Film Festival.

  Adventure takes four colors, two staples, and one dream Article contributed to Five Star Arts Journal by Jay Michaels Comic Books - like their characters - have a secret identity.

[cluelesskstuff]

How Yosuke Hanamura broke my heart

It’s incomplete, but I had to get this out of my system:

How Yosuke Hanamura broke my heart

Persona 4 is a funny game. It is also a long game, and that allows the social simulation aspect of it to really work, allows you to feel at home with the characters, through charm and repetition - grumpy Dojima, overly energetic Chie, confused heart of gold Kanji. Through little bits of interaction, day by in-game day, you at some point start to realise that when this is over, you might actually miss them. All of them. 

And then there is Yosuke. 

You play Persona 4 as Souji, a quite detached guy moving in from the city, hand on his hip, jacket slung over his shoulder, and while you, the player, grow fond of the game's characters, Souji always feels like he doesn't quite belong. He is the leader, the one who pulls the strings, the one grown up far beyond their age, with the world's weight on their shoulders. 

You juggle realtionships, help people out, they call you senpai, sensei - and then there is Yosuke. 

Yosuke, who somehow, magically, manages to transcent Persona 4's charming but game-y relationship system and becomes something else. Yosuke, who calls you Partner, and rings you up at night asking about your dreams or which girl you like. Yosuke, who does and says so many silly things that you never quite know what to expect - Yosuke, who ultimately breaks the boundaries of Persona 4 and makes Souji/Yosuke the most unexpectedly real-feeling relationship within a video game that I've ever encountered. 

I don't know what I thought when I first laid eyes on him, it's likely that it was something along the lines of "Hey, this is quite cool-looking for an anime video game guy. Nice headphones."

Then, in quick succession, things happened that made it clear that Yosuke was many things - heartbroken, repressed, funny, lazy, loyal, competitive, insecure, reckless - and that there was something building between him and Souji that seemed like a stunningly natural depiction of friendship. Somehow, this is rare - a video game showing two guys becoming friends, a process that just like falling in love requires making first moves, and opening up, and getting comfortable with each other. It seemed like Yosuke was the person in the cast that always wanted to know a little more, the one to push Souji a little bit, willing to ask stupid questions just to get a reaction, and unlike the other characters, he seemed to always act out of a desire to be level with Souji, to break through the calm, collected, leader-shell of his and address the human being inside. 

Now, that alone would be a remarkable thing for a video game to depict, and worthy of high praise. What complicates things is that Yosuke, no matter how much he might deny it, seems like the most obvious case of a closeted gay person the world has ever seen. 

When I started playing Persona 4, I had a pretty good idea of what I was getting myself into, through reading about it and actually having played a bit in the past. I also knew about the game's realtionship system, and was aware, or thought I was, that you could only get romantically involved with girls. Thus, when the game started to tease the possibility of a gay option, I raised an eyebrow, then another one, and then I lost my marbles. 

When it started, the closeness between Souji and Yosuke had already been established, and since I'm a sucker for guys not actually hating each other, I started to favour Yosuke a little bit - choosing him to eat lunch with on the roof, studying together, spending afternoons at the Junes food court, talking in the soft glow of the sun on the Samegawa river bank. When Yosuke asked which girl I liked, I chose "neither", cheekily, thinking I was playing the metagame, when the next midnight channel story twist came up, I bet each time that Yosuke would be the one to call Souji, outraged, worried, flustered, and each time when the phone rang and it was indeed him, I smiled to myself. But surely it was all in my head - I was starting to ship it, but it was just a fun little thing to do, to spare a thought here and there and layer it on top of these two characters whose interactions I enjoyed way more than expected. 

Then, these little moments started happening - the group sitting together at Junes' and Yosuke remarking how good Partner is with his hands, a comment that might not even have stuck out so much if weren't for the fact that immediately after saying it, Yosuke became a hot mess of backpedalling embarrassment. His insistence to know whether Souji had a crush on somebody, and who it was, despite the awkwardness. His remarks about inviting a third person to their activities, "or else people might think we're gay." And ultimately, the sheer time the game devoted to the Souji/Yosuke relationship - way more than any of the other characters got.

Persona 4's social link system is fairly rigid. You choose to spend time with people, and if things go well, and even sometimes if they don't, it raises your relationship level with said person, allowing you to climb the social link ranks, which has gameplay and combat benefits and also allows you, in some cases, to pursue a romance. What is remarkable about Yosuke is that the game spends a significant amount of time showing interactions between Yosuke and Souji outside of this system, building their relationship beyond the confines of you walking up to a person after school and answering "yes" to their proposal of hanging out. This not only serves to create a markedly more natural and complex relationship, it also sets Yosuke apart from the other characters - he is the one to choose to interact with Souji while the other characters can only wait to be chosen. 

And then Kanji entered the picture, Yosuke freaked out completely and I looked on, amazed at the fact that this game would dare to introduce a gay character, who, despite being closeted, met up with dates after school and whose dungeon was, of all things, a gay bathhouse, with sexual content that wasn't even the slightest bit concealed. Of all the characters, Yosuke reacted most strongly to this, outright refusing to enter and making a big fuss about being afraid of Kanji taking advantage of him. 

It culminated in the camping trip - Kanji, Yosuke, Souji sharing a tent - a scenario that could have been used very easily for a gay romance movie of questionable quality, full of the usual tropes of late night talks, denial, confrontation and very real confusion on my part of where exactly this was going - the game laid on the armored gay homophobia on Yosuke so thick that it seemed almost impossible to read what was going on in any other way. Combined with the unusual qualities that had been established in the realtionship before Kanji joined the group, it started to feel like an entire plot was going on behind the scenes, inexplicit yet persistent and increasingly impossible to ignore. 

A few in-game days after that camping trip, Yosuke broke another boundary the game had set up to this point - he visited Souji's home. More importantly, his room, a place that up until then you, the player, had always been alone in. The conversation that followed, in that intimate space, can't adequately be described as subtext anymore, it's text, and very gay text at that. I was streaming the game at the time, and I bet if that session's video was still up, you'd hear my breath hitch in surprise when Yosuke, no homo Yosuke, asked about Souji's porn stash and teasingly, suggestively stated he'd find it while Souji was out of the room. That was only the top of the iceberg, the whole scene and its context hit me like a 10 ton truck - could it be real? Was there really, explicitly something going on? The fact that I, after learning through research that there was no gay option, felt the need to double check after that scene, to make sure there wasn't one, should speak volumes. 

That's when I learned of the fact that Yosuke very likely was a gay option, that there were unused text and voice lines left over on the game's disk that turned the inexplicit explicit, both in english and japanese, suggesting the developer changed their mind after the localization was done, i.e. very late in the game's development. Only, they had ripped out very little, leaving in tons of sublte and not so subtle parts of the relationship, and that was when I realised that Persona 4, beyond being one of the best games I have ever played, would also have the potential to make me very sad, and very angry.

It wasn't just that gay rights had been dear to my heart for as long as I could remember. It wasn't just that the progression of Souji and Yosuke's relationship eclipsed any other possible pairing in the lineup by miles in terms of complexity and depth and just feeling right. It was the loss of an incredible story being told, a story that would have been unique in the history of video games - the story of two fully realised, multi-faceted male characters that you, as a player, like, falling in love, and dealing with the fact that they both happen to be guys, with all the issues that might bring in a society where homophobia and hate are still so prevalent. 

While this has been done in movies to great success in recent times, mainstream video games haven't dared to show male homosexual relationships in positive light and up front and center. Persona 4 does dare to spend significant time on very progressive subjects, including homosexuality and transgender issues, but it falters and pulls back just on the brink of being truly groundbreaking, which, to anybody playing the game with an open mind, can only scream injustice both in a worldly and in an in-game sense. 

The level 9 rank of Yosuke's social link progression has the two of you standing on a hill overlooking the town of Inaba. Yosuke'd probably call it a village, and the two of you talk about coming to terms with your place in the world, literally and figuratively. It's autumn, and the evening sun plays with the coloured leaves on the trees - it's a beautiful spot, a wistful song is playing, and despite the Playstation 2's aged graphics you can't help but marvel a little. You've never been to this spot before, you think Yosuke probably brought you here, and you wonder if there are any other locations in the town you know so well by now that you haven't seen.

"There is still nothing here," Yosuke says, meaning Inaba, a place he resented for the longest time, "but I have family, and friends...and you."

I sat in front of the TV for a long time, the soft piano notes of the song playing making me ache, and then I realised that while Yosuke Hanamura was denied the chance to become part of video games' first positively framed gay male relationship, he had acomplished one thing:

Yosuke Hanamura broke my heart.

[informally-young]

Against the duality of man

Hundreds of years removed as we may be from Hobbes’ musing on the unity of man, that we are not so much body and soul as we are one, Unified being; there is still an appeal to duality. Body and soul good and evil right and wrong

We look at these concepts as being separate from us, as if it is not only possible to lead a good life but there is some agreed upon moral arbitrator of what is good and evil. Owen suggested in 1816 that ‘The history of man informed me that innumerable attempts had been made, through every age, to lessen these evils; and experience convinced me that the present generation, stimulated by an accession of knowledge derived from past times, was eagerly engaged in the same pursuit’ and you know what fair enough good for him and good for the world, sometimes our belief that there is an evil to be conquered can spur us to be more than we are, it can spur mankind to such great heights.

However there is a kind of duality that bothers me deeply, the idea that there is definable and universal good and bad in everyone one, that this duality, stands not in a historical and social context but it is universal. We are not wholly virtuous or purely sinners, we are made of a duality. We have a light and a dark side. Buzwell explores this in relation to Jekyll and Hyde ‘Throughout the story, respectability is doubled with degradation; abandon with restraint; honesty with duplicity.’

There is a strong draw to this concept, we can clearly see that people are not wholly one thing or another, and we can also see such good acts contrasted by darker acts. So i’m not saying there is not a contrast between these concepts, or that as a human  I am not capable of falling short of my own moral goals, but I would argue that this is defined by my own sense of morals and ethics. Things that I have learnt, absorbed and crafted; it’s not inherent to my nature as a person. So its not an issue of an inherent duality of man, it is a result of a complex set of inputs from birth to now.

Jung argues eloquently for examining and addressing our own inner darkness ‘Unfortunately there can be no doubt that man is, on the whole, less good than he imagines himself or wants to be. Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. If an inferiority is conscious, one always has a chance to correct it. Furthermore, it is constantly in contact with other interests, so that it is continually subjected to modifications. But if it is repressed and isolated from consciousness, it never gets corrected.’ This can almost be a call to action, for self reflection, there is so much of value to be found in Jungs call to cast out our inner shadows by acknowledging it’s existence, however to often the duality of man is used in a different way,

If we acknowledge a dark side, some people then take this to look at humanity in a different way. ‘We have to look after number one, life isn’t about helping other it’s about looking after the only person who's important’ duality then becomes a get out of jail free card, a reason to treat others less, when we strive not toward compassion and care but we swing back to duality, I'm a good person but i’m a bit of a dick sometimes, we all have a darkside after all. Don’t get me wrong here i’m not suggesting we should all be saints, more that we can’t be, for we are not a mix of saint or sinners, we exist outside of a world the can make these distinctions, that we don’t exist according to some internal moral forces pulling at us, there is no deep duality of man.

Morals and ethics, alongside values and beliefs are malleable, they change with the culture and the time that they are set in. The christians of today are morally a different animal to the christians of 6th century Rome. Thats not to say that one is more righteous than the other, but that teaching and values changes over time, thats fine, thats good.

In another example our fictional tales deal with such light and dark concepts in a certain way, in Jekyll and Hyde this is presented as a difference between our expected and acceptable behaviour and the more animal and primal instincts of man, that human-beings are caught between the goodness they want to be within the world while trying to surpass their impure and evil thoughts, it is no surprise that Stevensons work comes from the Pious victorian era. A time of where the values of goodness were seen as going hand in hand with restraint and a pious attitude.

To many this might still seem right and proper, but the hippies of the 60’s would have seen goodness as going hand in hand not with restraint but instead with freedom; freedom of thought, freedom of the body, freedom of sexuality. Traits that would have been seen previously as evil were now to be celebrated as goodness and light.

So the duality of man is not a fight between a good and restrained attitudes and a dark uncontrolled force, but in this context goodness is an unrestrained light to the world, a free spirit and a free mind, now the previously moral pious and restraint is reframed as the evils of conformity and national order; of a world that is willing to engage in world devastating wars.

In this world the restrained men in suits were not the heroes but the villains. I know this is an over simplification but bear with me a little here.

In this way we can see that there is no historical or religious basis to a inherent duality of good and evil. Simply because the terms good and evil have no value outside of an agreed upon social order they cannot be inherent to us because good and evil change with the time and the culture. They are not inside because they are a construction, and abstraction, a model for understanding the world but like all metaphors ‘you have to be careful which metaphor you choose, because it matters. If you choose [humans as having] strings, then you’re imagining a world in which you can become irreparably broken. If you choose the grass, you’re saying that we are all infinitely interconnected, that we can use these root systems not only to understand one another but to become one another. The metaphors have implications.’ (Green, 2016). Without other people that agree what good and evil is there is no duality, the duality is not inside us, it is constructed by people, duality is a way to understand the world, but like any model a model train is not a train, and a toy barbie does not represent a real girl.

I believe there is a good, a set of moral, values and belief that coupled with learning about the nature of humans can help us treat each other better, but this is socially constructed and individually internalised, it is a mix of a social order and individual codes of ethics. it is not some lasting concept that will stand up to history, but will exist in the time and place were it makes sense as a trade between the social order and the individual. I also believe that no matter how strong our moral convictions, we can fall short, but not because of the duality of a human beings battling between is dark side and his light side, but because of a complex mix of short term needs and desires, long terms hopes and wishes, biological needs programmed into our DNA, cultural expectations placed on us by society and sometimes that our values and beliefs might be in conflicted, additionally the actions we take in the moment, and the actions we take after considered thought may be different, Khannman has explored this different type of duality as a difference between the system 1 and system 2 thinking ‘System 1 is fast; it's intuitive, associative, metaphorical, automatic, impressionistic, and it can't be switched off. Its operations involve no sense of intentional control, but it's the secret author of many of the choices and judgments you make System 2 is slow, deliberate, effortful. Its operations require attention.’ (2007) In this way if there is a duality, it is not between good and evil but between automatic thoughts our brain take almost without conscious effort, and the slower considered thinking, that we might identify as being us. The we, we are when we actually stop and think and aren’t on auto pilot.

Khannman theories are interesting but avoiding the good and evil duality is more than seeing our thinking as a mixture of impulsive and considered action, we can also see Jungs call to address the shadow inside of, without seeing it as a shadow, we can look at it instead as reducing dissonance or disharmony of thought. for example I can believe that all life is precious, and also believe in the right for women to have a choice over there body during early pregnancy. For some the right for individuals to have a say over the own lives and bodies, and the sanctity of life will lead to a different conclusion, but we have to balance these two competing values to do this, we have to reduce the disharmony on conflict in these two competing ideas.

When we believe that there is a greater force, and cosmic karma we can defend our own idea and knock down others because of a belief in a cosmic balancing. We can see the different balancing as moral not as an act of looking at values and coming to conclusions but of a level of evil, we can also do this to ourselves when our world feels our of order. ‘All of this shit happens to me, i must have been a serial killer in another life.’ comes the calling card a light hearted stab at both our belief in a greater justice that good people should have good things happen to them, and the reality that terrible things happen to people who are only trying to do there best all the time. This actually points to a deep cognitive dissonance Festinger's (1957) cognitive dissonance theory suggests that we have an inner drive to hold all our attitudes and beliefs in harmony and avoid disharmony (or dissonance). We tell the lie as a joke because it reduced the dissonance between the beliefs and the consequences.

We can see Jung’s shadow in this way to, the shadow is not in-fact a reflection of an inner darkness but the distance between what we believe deep down and some of the aspect of our personality that do not match with how we want to be in the world. Took would see this a critical to self reflection it ‘“enables an understanding of the way (socially dominant) assumptions may be socially restrictive, and thus enables new, more empowering ideas and practices. Critical reflection thus enables social change beginning at individual levels. Once individuals become aware of the hidden power of ideas they have absorbed unwittingly from their social contexts, they are then freed to make choices on their own terms.”’ In this way there may be a shadow but it isn’t darkness it is of ideas that do not match the ideas we think of as core to our values.

We cannot always live without such dissonance John Green say’s “Like, in general I think people have very complicated reasons for wanting things, and we often have no idea whether we’re actually motivated by altruism or a desire to hook up or a search for answers or what. I always get annoyed when in books or movies characters want clear things for clear reasons, because my experience of humanness is that I always want messy things for messy reasons.”

It can be easy to sort our thought in retrospect to blame certain actions on a inherent darkness of the human spirit, or to re order actions that turn out well as being motivated by our goodness. The reality is we are all confused people walking through this world and trying to do our best. in this was looking at the world without this duality can be freeing.

So why even bring this up, why does it matter in the end if we are a mix of good and evil or something slightly less easy to define? Why  even care what mixed metaphor we use to find our way through the world? Firstly because there is an appeal to the good vs evil narrative and that gives it a power over our actions, it is something that is woven deep in to culture and as a story it’s great, I love a good hero vs villain story, but theres a deeper issue at play.

epistemic responsibility argues that it is wrong always and everywhere for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. Not only that but that ‘there is no such thing a a private belief because we all talk about our beliefs some of us do it a lot and it causes our beliefs to spread.’   So even if you don’t talk a belief can spread through our action or in fact our inaction. our views always have an effect on others. you should morally not have an opinion until you have evidence to back that up, blind faith leads a person to ignore other facts and arguments causing them to live an unexamined, unthoughtful life. when you adopt a belief you have options and the nature of those options can basically determine the moral defensibility of the beliefs you end up holding. (Taken from brilliant crash course video on epistemic responsibility)

In this way in our attitude when we believe that there is a duality of good and evil can lead us to be less critical and more judgmental of others and forgiving of our own flaws. This deep contradiction exist in the unexamined belief of the duality of humans. We can minimise the hurtful actions of our own by choosing not to reflect and grow but instead to say that we all have a dark side, we can see our good actions as not based on our notions of good but being part of something more a cosmic justice far above all mankind. We can see others actions as objectively evil not from our and our culture point of view but from a view that we are right in a cosmic sense. This as an idea leans into something called the just world fallacy, were we believe that the is a cosmic justice and it leads toward favouring the good and the just. We are right because we have goodness on our side, and good things happen to good people and evil people get was they deserve. The poor are not poor there lazy, the beaten are not undefended there weak, the hurt are not betrayed they need to toughen up.

We also tell ourselves and worse we tell our friends that they did everything they could, if a situation between your friend and someone they might have hurt happens, we instinctively tell them, they are a good person, that they shouldn’t worry about it and they should move on.

Now imaging that billions of times a day, two sets of friends both telling there friend that they did everything they could and the other person if wrong. Sometimes thats true, but sometimes a combination of our bias towards our friend and our desire to help them leads to nuance being lost. Both people leave that situation believing they were right, they were the just ones. Reflection helps us examine these beliefs.

We can see how such a world view can be harmful, not in a big way but in lots of small way every day, when we buy into the idea of good and evil as eternal and unmovable we can end up sitting in judgement on others, and removing ourselves from judgement. Reflection however is not an answer to all of life's problems it is not a replacement for a belief in good and evil, reflection on its own can be harmful as we cannot reflect on things that we have a blind spot for, things about ourselves we are not yet able to face. ‘personal reflection should be used not as an end-in-itself but as a springboard for more general insight, personal growth and professional development.’ (finlay, 2007)

In this way the concept of a inherent dark and lightness in character needs to be replaced with conversation with peers, friends and even those who we disagree with about what a humans we value and why, and internal reflection on our own values, our own dissonance and an understanding that falling short of our goals in not having a darkside, but it is a chance to learn and grow.

I believe strongly in the my conception of good as I assume many people do, but it should and must be malleable to evidence, we must never believe that our conception of good is somehow universal, that we know enough about the world to be able to judge others on little or no evidence as evil. I get the appeal in a complex world we want simple answers we want to believe in these universal truths we want to support our families and friends, I’m not arguing for a complete reimagining of our relationship with the world, but instead for a little more grey. constant reflection and growth can be draining and difficult, sometimes we don’t want to talk to our political opposites about values, but to retreat and talk to friend about how they other guys don’t get it. We need to do this to stay sane, but let us not mistake is as virtue, it is not the good speaking to the good, it is us being human with all its inherent flaws and promise.

Man is not good or evil, humans instead exist in a sea of complexity, of shifting and turning multitude of greys that can change on the winds, and the tides. Todays grey might look white in a few years time or it may seem murky and black in retrospect. but if we look to duality, actions of ourselves and others can be reduced to good and evil, Jungs shadow becomes not the thing within us that we seek to work on, but darkness becomes justification for acts that we would see in others as wrong, but that we cast away from ourselves to maintain our own image of self as saintly.

‘Though sour grapes will turn to wine its all just vinegar with time And oh, I want to know, we all want to know How can anybody treat somebody so?’

[newyorktheater]

Bobby Steggert LMSW

Bobby Steggert, actor headshot

Ragtime, 2009 in his Tony-nominated performance as Mother’s Younger Brother

Ivan Hernandez and Bobby Steggert in Yank, 2010.

Big Love, 2015

Bobby Steggert, Frederick Weller, Grayson Taylor and Tyne Daly in Mothers and Sons, 2014

Two years ago, Bobby Steggert, a Tony-nominated actor with extensive credits on and Off Broadway (Ragtime, Big Fish, Yank! etc) , surprised the theater community by announcing that he had switched careers. In an article on Medium, he explained that he was in the middle of getting a degree in social work from Columbia University. “My master’s degree will be a piece of paper, but my life as an artist will make me a great social worker, this I know.” Since July of 2019, Bobby Steggert LMSW has been serving as a psychotherapist in private practice and a staff therapist at the Institute for Human Identity Therapy Center,. Three-fourths of his clients, he tells me, are “actors, singers, dancers, directors, writers, or designers,” and (his staff biography says) he comes to the therapy relationship with “warmth, humor, and a solution-focused approach.” He seemed the right person to ask about the specific mental health needs of theater artists during this stressful period, and he readily agreed to speak with me.

Have you had any new thoughts about your switching careers since you wrote that piece in Medium in 2018?

Time and retrospection have been even more clarifying. I think that what I struggled with most of all near the end of my performance life was a lack of meaningful purpose when not employed. This is obviously part and parcel of any freelance career, but a lot of that sense of purposelessness was within me, and in my inability or unwillingness to find sustainable and grounding purpose in other parts of my life. As a result, I focus quite a bit on finding purpose with clients, and how they can foster these essential elements of a satisfying life, even within the extreme limitations of a time like today.

Based on your own experience as a therapist, and that of your therapeutic colleagues, has there been a general uptick of mental health issues over the past few months?  

Most definitely. I think that we are in a time of great anxiety as a culture and so of course that trickles down to individual experiences. There are a lot of people who are experiencing heightened anxiety and depression, and, as a result of that, dealing with an increase in substance abuse and also relationship issues and, of course, issues with unemployment and loss of income.

My colleagues and I have gotten quite a few inquiries from people who want to enter therapy. I am at capacity so I try to find other therapists for people who call me in order to get them treatment as soon as possible.

People are struggling pervasively because we have been challenged with unbelievable limitations. When you don’t have community and you don’t have a sense of purpose and you don’t have a source of income, those are definite recipes for mental health struggles.

I understand that every person is individual, but are there issues specific to (common in) theater artists during this time of pandemic and unemployment, or ways in which theater artists feel these stresses in a different way?

The most devastating thing about this crisis for theater makers is that there is really nowhere to turn for alternative employment in live performance. Theater artists are singularly gifted in creating work that is shared and felt in one communal, physical space, and in this moment, it’s practically an impossibility. We are all making major sacrifices right now, but theater artists have their hands tied in a way that is unique, and any adjustment to other work is felt as a true loss to one’s core sense of contribution.

What advice or words of comfort have you been giving to artists — or could you give to artists now?

The irony is that so many artists buy the line that they have “no real world skills” and yet they are the most creative, adaptive, and flexible people around. They are made for shifting and unexpected circumstances. They understand the vicissitudes of a highly inconsistent industry, which uniquely prepares them for a highly inconsistent time. I try to remind my clients that their fantastic relationship and communication skills alone make them highly qualified for any temporary adjustments to employment or living situations that are required of them right now. I also like to remind my clients that they are excellent at making meaning – that’s what artists do – and one major thing we have control over now is to make conscious, growth-oriented meaning out of our experiences, even when they’re terrible. And while many can’t make meaning through work right now, they can make it through their relationships, parts of their identities outside of the profession, their bodies through health and self-care, and their creative voices, whether broadcast to the world or quietly to themselves.

What about theatergoers rather than theater makers? Are you aware of ways in which the lack of live in-person theater has had a tangible, diagnosable effect?

I am not sure if I could call it diagnosable but I do think that humans benefit greatly from gathering in groups and physical spaces and in experiencing collective energy together. I think that is why theater is so special. That’s a huge reason why people, for example, attend church. Without that live shared energy, I think that is why people are suffering from loneliness even when staying connected to fiends and family through the Internet.

So what can people do about this?

I think it depends on people’s risk level and how far they are willing to go to be in contact with other humans, but I have suggested to my clients to find as many opportunities as possible to meet friends in the park or to be around other people in outdoor settings as a way to feel more physically connected to other humans.

It’s interesting that you talked earlier about finding purpose, because that of course is the main characteristic of your Tony-nominated role as Mother’s Younger Brother in “Ragtime.” Is that just a coincidence?

In retrospect, I think that as an actor the roles you play can teach you about yourself, and I do attribute that experience to be the seed of an investigation for myself as to how I could find more sustainable purpose than I was able to find as an actor who too often has to wait around for invitations to participate n what they do. Another role really taught me something — Will in “Mothers and Sons.” He was a young man who was so integrated into himself as a gay person. That character taught me that I needed to do more work to embrace the fullness of my own sexual identity.

So you’re saying that your roles helped shaped you as a person?

Very much so. When you inhabit them you take on their energy and you take on their psychology and if you are open to it , that character can teach you new things about yourself.

I admired your performances, and was struck by how much vulnerability you allowed your characters. Feel free to disagree with my premise, but, if you agree, was that vulnerability deliberate, a reflection of your own nature, or just a result of the roles for which you were cast? And is that quality a help or a hindrance or irrelevant to  your new career?

I do agree with the premise. The purpose I did find as an actor was to expose the complexities of the human condition in a way that was raw and that was vulnerable. I think that is because I am naturally a more emotional and more vulnerable person. I think that quality inspires others to be more vulnerable, and so I find it very helpful as a therapist. I’m asking others to become more vulnerable and through that vulnerability to understand themselves and to experience life more deeply.

But do people seeking therapy want vulnerability, or rather somebody who seems confident and authoritative?

I think that the most important quality in a therapist is that the person feel safe with them. That sense of safety can help them to open up and to be braver in their own introspection. [My vulnerability] changes shape because as a therapist there are certainly boundaries, but at the same time I try to exist in a therapeutic relationship with total openness and with a certain kind of vulnerability that I hope can inspire others to be the same.

Where can people go for help?

I have two layers of an answers to that question. Specifically for theater people who are looking for mental health help, I think that the Institute for Human Identity is a great option because they have a lot of availability for therapists who are in the arts or who understand what it is to be in the arts. Another resource is the Actors Fund, which has a wonderful list of therapists who are also in some way connected to the arts. Those are the two places I would send theater people if they are looking to talk to someone.

On another layer, I think the best way to deal with stress especially under these circumstances is to find a physical practice, because being connected a one’s body is sometimes the best option. So I am finding that people are turning to yoga or exercise or mindful meditation.

But what if the theater person doesn’t have any money? As you said, most are unemployed now.

That is really rough. The Actors Fund also provides grants to people who are unemployed. There are also much more affordable options, such as a therapeutic apps called TalkSpace.

Is there anything about theater that you’ve used to help your clients – or yourself – cope with the stresses of the current situation? 

I find it oddly comforting to think about Shakespeare’s time, in which London theaters closed several times due to the plague. He mentions the plague in several of his plays, including The Tempest and King Lear. And during the two year period between 1592-1594 when he couldn’t write plays, he turned to poetry. He adapted just like we all must.

If possible for us to telescope out of this very moment, and while acknowledging all of the suffering and hardship we are enduring, we can be reminded that human history is full of enormous disruptions to life as usual, and yet we keep moving forward, because we have to. Live theater will never leave us – and we will inevitably return to the day when we gather again to take in stories in ways that no other storytelling can replicate.

  Centers for Disease Control: Coping with Stress

Bobby Steggart, Actor Turned Therapist Q & A: Theater Artists Are Suffering Two years ago, Bobby Steggert, a Tony-nominated actor with extensive credits on and Off Broadway (Ragtime, Big Fish, Yank!

[mrmichaelchadler]

Sundance 2019 Interview: Julius Onah on Luce

Questions of identity, power and perception are smartly absorbed and considered in “Luce”, which premiered at the 2019 Sundance Film Festival on Sunday in the US Dramatic Competition section. Director Julius Onah, who co-wrote the screenplay with J.C. Lee (in an adaptation of Lee’s stage play), says he was never interested in judging the characters or making a didactic film in telling the story of the black teenager Luce (Kelvin Harrison Jr.), and his white adoptive parents Amy and Peter (Naomi Watts and Tim Roth) as they grapple with certain allegations brought on to their star-student son by an over-concerned teacher named Harriet Wilson (Octavia Spencer).

A sophisticated drama that engages with timely themes around race, class, sexism and sexual trauma, and morphs into a subtle psychological thriller of sorts, “Luce” is more concerned with raising questions for smart audiences instead of providing neat answers for them. We recently sat down with Onah to discuss his latest film, currently seeking distribution at the festival.

What we bring to a movie as the audience always counts, but I felt like, in “Luce”, it counted for a little bit more. You play a lot with certain perceptions, presumptions or assumptions one might have. It was fascinating to see the movie operate on those two planes; what’s on the screen and what I, as an audience member, thought I knew about those characters. I just kept questioning myself.

It was something that came on a couple of different levels. First, it was in the writing. We worked really hard to make sure that, as we were telling the story, we weren't judging the characters. And that, as we were giving you information, as you were learning about these people, comes in a way that it's very carefully laid out but also feels organic. And then that there would be moments to build an expectation and then subvert that expectation in terms of what people would do. A big part of it was in the camera as well. 

The film plays in long takes, uses a more objective camera, and holds back a little bit as opposed to constantly asking the audience to feel this or feel that for a specific person, so that you just have time to take these people in. And then, as a result of not being told what you should feel about that one way or another, then you start questioning it when new bits of information come in. I wanted the movie to feel elegant and be great to look at, but then also not be something where the camera or the music or the performances became didactic. 

“Luce” was first a play by your co-writer J.C. Lee. What felt cinematic to you about it? How did you two get together to work on a film adaptation? 

I never saw the play. I was working on another movie in Los Angeles and I got a call from Imagine Entertainment and Brian Grazer there to take a look at this script they had written. That was written by J.C. Lee and I had never heard of him before. They sent me a writing sample, which was a play. When I read the play, I jumped on the movie just because I was like, "This play is fantastic!" It had that same sense of ambiguity and mystery and it was actually probably better to get to see it on text as opposed to seeing another director's interpretation of it. It just reminded me of the filmmakers who I really look up to. Everybody from Michael Haneke to Götz Spielmann; a lot of filmmakers who I think explore moral and social issues in a really complicated way. Even some early movies of Spike Lee as well. I just felt like, "Okay, there's an opportunity here to make something, influenced by those films, but hopefully make it my own thing as well.

When was this, when did you read the script?

I read the play in 2014.

A very different time politically.

Yeah. Very different time.

I mean; the themes and topics of the movie aren't new all of a sudden. These issues existed in 2014, too. But maybe they carry a little more significance and urgency today than they did back then. Did your journey as a writer and filmmaker shift or evolve over the years, in the way you engaged with the material? 

As you said, these issues have always been here, and I think they've just been right underneath the surface. And, obviously, when you have somebody like Barack Obama as president, the symbolic power of that is something that gives people a lot of hope that we're moving forward. And if Hillary's presidency came in, we'd be in a completely different place. We would continue to feel like we're having that march forward, but I don't think these issues would have gone away. Perhaps the tenor of the conversation would've been a little bit different.

And I think it was the right decision to [not] fundamentally try to change anything drastic about the play other than the organic adaptation from one format to another. The last thing I wanted was to be sensational or feel like, "Okay, we're going to capitalize on this movement." Because that was never the intention [behind] making the movie. The intention was just to be honest about things that affect my life, my family's life, my friends' life, and “people-I-care-about”s life.

It's interesting, obviously, now that we're living in a very different world with Trump, [certain] elements of the film are going to resonate differently, but I think those core questions are the same. And that's where it was always driving us because we were just passionate about these kinds of characters and these issues, regardless.

The relationship between Octavia Spencer's character and Kevin Harrison Jr's character is a really complex one. I mean, on one hand, I really sympathize with him because he wants to be free from the obligation to be perfect. But I see her point of view in pushing Luce, too—she's a person of a different era. 

It's a real conversation that I think we're having now on a number of different levels. If you look at the generation that somebody like Harriet is coming from, it was just a very different way to deal with social justice. If you were black, well, you know what? It's about being colorblind. You look at what's happening in the military now, what was happening in the '90s with Clinton, if you were gay, well, "Don't ask, don't tell." And I think what was really interesting for me, and just looking at younger people today, there's a freedom that they want to have.

They're saying, "If your generation was fighting hard for us to have the opportunity to be human, then we need to be able to experience the full spectrum of humanity. And I know you're trying to protect us, but if we're not going to take that next step from the step that you took, which was a step forward from the people before you as well. How are we going to make progress?" And there's no easy answer to that question. I don't have the answer to it. And if I did, I don't think I would have wanted to make this movie. I think it's such a worthwhile, dangerous and delicate conversation, that I really wanted to make this movie and tell the story.

[Harriett’s] is a tough-love mentality: "Look, I know you kids want to be able to express yourself this way, but the world might not accept that." It's a heartbreaking thing for me as well because I've dealt with versions of that too, both with my parents. It was something that when we would rehearse scenes Octavia and Kelvin and I would talk about. And Naomi and Kelvin and I would talk about. And I think it's also just a big part of the conversation we're having right now across this country on every level, on every spectrum of my identity. It's also on the basis of class. Luce is an immigrant. I'm an immigrant to this country. I didn't move here until I was 10. I think we're going to continue to be in this very heated moment if we can't find a way to start having honest conversations about what's going on. 

How did you cast Kelvin Harrison Jr. to play Luce? I loved him in “It Comes At Night” too.

My background is in theater. I studied theater for my first degree and I grew up all over the world. My sister lives in England and she married a Brit and I traveled a lot. You look at Chiwetel Ejiofor, David Oyelowo, and John Boyega. There are so many great young actors of the African Diaspora who are growing up in England and Australia and all these other places. And I assume that, because there's a very specific theater tradition in some of those countries that we would find somebody from there. We did a casting call and we were getting things from all over the world. And one of the tapes that came in was Kelvin’s, and then his agent had reached out to our casting director, and he and I had breakfast and, I just always want to be open minded. I knew nothing about him. We went and we talked for 30 minutes. He seemed like a sweet guy. And then his tape came in and I was like, "Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa! Who the hell is this kid?" And he just blew me away. He's such a good guy and I'm so proud of him because he worked really hard.

How did you help him internalize Luce’s back-story? It’s a complicated one.

We talked about everything. I love the process of building a character and I knew with something like this, because he's such a specific type, it would have to be built. And one of the first things I did with him was, he came over to my office when I was in LA and we started working on dialect. How does this kid talk? I'm originally from Nigeria, so there was a guy who I knew was a Nigerian-American. I hired a dialect coach and he recorded that guy speaking and then he started helping shape the dialect for Luce.

We would work on his body language; we would work on his posture. I was a debater in high school as well. So I brought the podium in and he and I would meet and I'd tell him, "This is the posture, this is how you carry yourself professionally." And then in terms of just the ideology of the character, I had him read several Frantz Fanon books, philosopher and psychiatrist and postcolonial thinker. Kelvin read those books. He actually wrote the paper in the movie and Octavia graded it. It’s the paper he's holding in the film. That was just a portion of living the character. 

And then the other thing I did was, I tried to find models that I think were similar to what Luce has to do and the idea of being somebody who's black in a prominent position. Because he's prominent in his community, in America and walking a fine line between being acceptable to people who aren't black, but then also being authentic to people who are black. And I felt Barack Obama, obviously is a massively transformative figure and Will Smith was I think, the first black major superstar—you can go to China, you can go to Nigeria, you can go to Germany, and people embrace him the same way they embrace Tom Cruise and other stars like that. So I had him look at the performative quality of those types of people, the way they're able to engage in public with people in a way that is nonthreatening and feels authentic and joyful, and use that to be one side of Luce. 

I want to talk a little bit about Luce's parents' journey. They are definitely liberal, well-intentioned people but they both handle the allegations against Luce differently. It also made me turn a mirror to myself and ask, “What would I have done?” 

I grew up with people like that. The movie is set in Arlington, Virginia, which is where I moved to when I was 10 years old. Especially being here with parents who weren't American, so much of what I had to learn was from other people's friends, from friends' parents. Or also from teachers. And then, these were all people who have the right liberal values, they are open minded and progressive, but they're not perfect. They're messy. And what I find, and I think it happens to me as well when I'm put in a situation that I'm uncomfortable, there's a defensiveness that sometimes just automatically snaps up. I could recognize a version of myself in those parents too. We're all struggling to grapple with the world that is changing so fast when it comes to how identity is defined, and when it comes to recognizing who has power and who has privilege. It’s really fucking hard. And I just wanted the humanity of these people. I have no interest in telling the story just to villain-ize them. I love Amy. I think she's an incredible character and trying to be an incredible person, even though she might do things that you and I might not like.

Honestly speaking, the ex-girlfriend character and her choices in the end is probably the only thing that I struggled with. But maybe her reaction is a coping mechanism too. Maybe she doesn't want to be victimized.

What happened to Stephanie Kim is terrible, but she's also a 17-year-old girl. And much like Luce who does not want to be put in this box on a symbolic level, [she might think], “Why do I have to be the perfect symbol of victimhood?” I think what she does is complicated and messy, but these young people are still in progress. Stephanie and Luce and DeShaun, they're all living that dichotomy and it's really hard. And having lived a version of it myself, it's really confusing and painful and, sometimes, especially when you're still 17, you don't know how to react. It's tricky and it's tough, but I felt it's also probably the most truthful thing.

I tried to be very thorough with everything I do. We did a lot of friends and family screenings where we brought all different kinds of people. We brought women of color, between J.C. and I; I'm originally from Africa, grew up in Asia and in Europe and moved here when I was 10. J.C. is part black, part Italian, part Chinese, and gay. So we brought every walk of life into the room. But what was interesting is, there were a number of Asian-American women in their 20s, who came up to us afterwards and they were just like, "Thank you so much for making a Stephanie Kim character, somebody who looked like me but just wasn't only the stereotype of the victimized girl." I wouldn't even say that we overtly were trying to do that. We just wanted to make characters that felt honest to people like us, and the people we knew.

With your previous movie, “The Cloverfield Paradox”, you went the Netflix route and the film was in everyone’s living rooms at the same time. Now with “Luce”, you’re 180-degrees on the opposite end of the spectrum. You’re starting traditionally, with a festival like Sundance and seeking distribution. I'm wondering what you make of those two very different pathways as a filmmaker. 

It's confusing and so complicated. I love movies. We shot “Luce” on 35mm. Larkin Seiple is a really talented DP. So, that process of telling the story, it's just so important to me. When I saw “Roma”, I was like; "I'm not watching it at home." I had to come into the IFC Center and wait in line and got my ticket. But there was a long line; I just remember a long line. I had to see it in the theater, [because] that's the way I fell in love with movies. And that's the way I always want to experience movies first. Even “Mandy”, I know that was on VOD at the same time, but I had to go see it in a theater. But the world is changing. For some kinds of movies that might not be able to be created any other way, what Netflix is offering is obviously very valuable. For a story like “Luce”, I feel like part of the experience of it is being uncomfortable with a group of people you might not know. And sharing that experience and then processing that. Cinema is about that communal experience and it's something that I always want to see preserved. But then I just recently saw “Shirkers”, which I loved. I thought it was terrific. And I was like, "Thank God for Netflix." So, again, I totally see the value of it. I hope the “Roma”s of the world are movies that we still get to see in theaters. And I think that's the thing that makes me the most conflicted.

What are you ideally seeking in a distributor who might be interested in “Luce”? 

I want it to be somebody who really believes in the film, and believes in the questions that the film is trying to ask. And believes and respects the audience enough to receive it. I really wanted to respect the audience, treat them within intelligence. Sometimes from a creative and/or distribution standpoint, people get taken for granted. I think there is a smart audience out there that wants to grapple with these types of ideas in a way that is messy and complicated. And I really want to find the right partner who's committed to that. Everybody; Octavia, Naomi, Tim, Kelvin, the whole crew was just in it for the right reasons. We were very lucky to have just an incredibly diverse group of people. Most of our department heads were people of color and women. Everybody came in really caring about the questions the story wanted to ask. I would want a distributor who can continue that spirit.

from All Content http://bit.ly/2MHdgYw

[ecritetmort]

aaaand there’s another (incorrectly) flagged one the next page over ... it’s 20 Mistakes To Avoid When Writing Young Adult Fiction/Romance but this one doesn’t seem to have a non-tumblr version (yet), but luckily tumblr lets me edit my reblog and see the post that way, so like.

get fuckin’ ready. xkit is a fucking godsend.

20 Mistakes To Avoid When Writing Young Adult Fiction/Romance (original post by wordsnstuff)

[intro]

Making A Good Story

These are some things you should avoid doing when writing YA fiction/romance in order to make a generally enjoyable and enticing story.

Forgetting The Supporting Characters

The supporting characters are an important part of any story, even if the main plot revolves around two people. Supporting characters provide subplots, information to the reader, and more opportunities for your audience to connect and relate to your story. It’s always good to give your supporting characters love and attention when creating and writing them. Sometimes they end up carrying the story.

A mistake that a lot of authors make is that they give the reader a couple defining characteristics, a name, a relationship to the main character, and then just make that character pop into the reader’s view whenever the main plot needs them to. No backstory. No life of their own. Just support to the plot, and that’s a huge waste of potential. You don’t want your readers to put down your book and either forget the supporting characters existed at all, or believe that they were extra pieces of a puzzle.

Using Slang Badly

Writers should not feel the need to include current slang in order to make their story more relatable or popular amongst their targeted demographic. Slang is constantly changing, evolving, and most importantly, dying. Not to say that you should only write in traditional terms or put “thy” and “thee” everywhere, but using standard English and avoiding the trendy but temporary slang words is key.

If you must use slang, try to use the bare minimum and only in fitting circumstances. If your character is the type to say “OMG her dat boi memes are on fleek” then, by all means, go right ahead, but you probably cringed when you read that. That would have been totally normal 2 years ago, but every bit of that sentence has died over time, and no matter how much you think a slang word will stick, don’t risk it.

Sympathy and Envy Mongering

Two emotions that YA Fiction and Romance always try to invoke in their readers are sympathy and envy. The author either wants the reader to feel bad for one or many of the characters, or they want them to be jealous of the awesome (and usually unrealistic) lives the characters have. Don’t be one of these. It’s tired and boring and not original in the slightest.

Are sympathy and empathy both totally okay emotions?

Yes.

Are they all you need to write a good story?

Nope. Not at all.

The reader needs and wants to feel more than jealous of and sad for the characters in the story. The best stories are the ones that trigger a complex whirlwind of emotion. Sympathy and envy are the easy way out, and you get out of those emotions what you put into them.

Unrealistically Portraying Teenagers & Teenage Life

Teenagers look up to and compare themselves and their lives to the characters and lives of the characters in your story. Keeping in mind that your audience is young and impressionable is essential for authors of the genre.

Love At First Sight

Love-at-first-sight does not happen. Infatuation, maybe, but love is more complicated than that. Writing a plot based on “love at first sight” can leave a bad taste in your readers’ mouths from the start, and that is something you should avoid at all costs. On top of that, love-at-first-sight is a very easy-way-out move and if you’re dedicated to your characters and your story, there’s a good to fair chance that you can come up with a more satisfying build up.

Unrealistic Romantic Situations

If you’ve ever opened a YA Romance, chances are you’ve read a scene in which the protagonist and the love interest end up in a stunningly beautiful place and the love interest sweeps the protagonist off their feet prior to riding into the sunset. This, unfortunately, does not happen very often, especially in teenage relationships. The most romance you’re going to get (usually) is the love interest offering to pay for the protagonist’s bag of skittles with the leftover money from their paycheck they earned at McDonald’s.

Just because teenagers don’t really go to great lengths to rent an entire ice-skating rink in the middle of the night so they and their crush can skate to Ellie Goulding music doesn’t mean there can’t be cute and memorable moments. Great doesn’t always equal grand and that’s important to remember. A lot of the time, teenagers appreciate fantasizing about things that are actually possible.

Happy Endings

Not all stories have to end happily, and you’ve definitely been told this before, but nobody ever takes into account how stories about teenagers have so much potential when it comes to endings. Teenagers read books about teenagers and unfortunately, this means that a lot of them will take what you’re writing about and try to change their own lives to match. Be honest in your depiction about what actually happens when you leave high school.

The majority of the time, high school sweethearts won’t stay together. Long distance won’t work, they’ll find someone else, the spark will die out, their personalities will undergo drastic changes, and their goals and plans for the future will turn out differently than they expected. “And they lived happily ever after” is criticized harshly for a reason, especially in YA and YA Romance. Most stories don’t end happily, but there is more than one story in a person’s life and giving a person their happy ending as they graduate high school is a great injustice, to your character and your readers.

Avoiding The Dark Parts Of Teenage Life

Teenagers, despite what a lot of the media claims, go through some really serious and stressful and damaging things. Teenagers suffer from mental illness and deal with the intense pressure of the education system and hold their heads high in the face of stigma over every little detail about them. They suffer from eating disorders and body dysmorphia and self-harm tendencies, and that doesn’t even bring into account the bullying and family issues and the stress of constantly learning and feeling things for the very first time with little to no guidance or assurance or resources to ask for help. It is hard being a teenager. Do not forget that, and don’t leave the actual teenagers reading your story feeling underrepresented and/or abnormal because they aren’t as stress-free as the characters they look up to.

Exaggerating How Teenagers Interact With Each Other

A lot of teenage interactions are short, awkward, and uneventful. Teenagers aren’t super eloquent and socially apt, but YA Fiction seems to believe they are. It’s quite rare that a teenager will just walk up to someone they like, say “wanna go to dinner on Saturday?” and all will be fine and dandy. It’s quite rare that a teenager will saunter up to someone who talked about them behind their back, say something super clever and damaging to their enemy’s ego, and saunter off like the king/queen of the world. Those interactions look great in our heads, but they usually contain a few stuttered words and “um”s and blushing. Confidence is usually a trait that people develop later in life, so try not to push it if you’re trying to be realistic.

Maturity of Teenagers

Teenagers are underdeveloped human beings with minimal experience in most areas of life. They do not have it all figured out. A lot of YA books revolve around characters that are extremely intelligent, disciplined and ambitious at a level of maturity a 25-year-old be on. This is not accurate. Making characters “awkward” or “childish” does not have anything to do with how mature they seem to readers. There is a distinct difference between an awkward girl with childlike innocence and a girl who makes mistakes, does not have her life figured out, and is not yet comfortable with casual social interaction. The latter things I mentioned are pretty universal when it comes to teenagers.

Unfitting Aspirations

There are more than two paths in life. It seems that in YA you’re either going to graduate, get married, pop out a couple kids and live the rest of your life in the suburbs, or you’re going to leave home, go to college, travel for 20 years and settle in some random country in Europe writing poetry until the end of your days. There is no in between, which sucks. There are a lot of interesting things you can do in life, not to say that either of the two life paths I mentioned are uninteresting. You could take a gap year and travel the world, go to college, move back home for a couple years then maybe get a job that has you traveling and exploring new things for the rest of your life. You could meet the love of your life in college and have some kids but put them in online school so you could travel with them. You could live your whole life in an awesome cabin in the forest casting spells and adopting wild squirrels. There are so many ways life can be and restricting it to opposite extremes takes the imagination out of the future.

Not All Teenagers Think Their Relationships Will Last Forever

This one is pretty self explanatory, so long story short, not every relationship a teenager enters into is with the end goal of staying together forever, or even more than a few months. Most teenage relationships are pretty short and not very meaningful, and portraying every single couple in your stories as “we’ve been going strong for 2 years and plan on getting married right after graduation” is inaccurate and will probably cause your readers some disappointment in the future.

Relationships Aren’t A Teenager’s Only Concern

Most teenagers are more concerned about the F they got on a History test than they are about who they’re going to stare at next period. Everyone has more than just their crush to worry about. Some teenagers have to worry about where they’re going to get their next meal or how they’re going to get a ride home from school or even how they can apologize to a friend they’ve hurt. It’s not all about relationships for teenagers, in fact, relationships are a pretty small part of teenage life. If all your character has to think about is the hottie they sit next to in Biology, perhaps you should work a little more on character development.

Unnatural Appearances

Most teenagers are not model-level attractive. All teenagers have break-outs and leave the house late with greasy hair or with their shirt on inside out. No teenager shows up at school every day looking absolutely flawless, as if they’re about to walk down the runway. Please keep that in mind, because portraying teenagers accurately, especially when it comes to physical aspects such as weight, acne, etc. is super important. In YA and YA Romance, you must keep in mind that the teenagers you are trying to appeal to should not feel like a piece of trash because they aren’t as perfect as your characters. Yes, YA Fiction is Fiction, but just because you know that it’s unrealistic doesn’t mean your readers do. Readers of YA Fiction compare themselves to the characters in your books whether you like it or not. It is not hard to realistically portray physical appearances of teenagers.

Avoiding Dangerous Messages

A common problem found in YA Fiction is the lacing of dangerous messages found in the smaller details. You may miss them the first couple times you read a story, but if you go looking for them, you will find them, and perhaps you will find the source of a lot of mistakes you’ve made. YA has a bad habit of endorsing mindsets that lead to bad decisions. Some of them, however, can be avoided in your own writing.

The Need To Change The “Flawed” One

Nobody in this world is perfect. Expecting the person you supposedly love to be flawless all the time is not realistic. People make mistakes. People are not always happy and bubbly and confident about themselves. People do not always act the same one day as they did the day before. Human beings are flawed and should be portrayed as such, especially in the stage of their life which is the most confusing and scary. Teenagers are underdeveloped human beings, and for some reason, teenager girls in YA Romance expect teenage boys to be charming and loving and never ever make a mistake, which is ridiculous. Creating love interests that appear flawless and can make no mistakes is detrimental to your audience. It raises your readers’ expectations to an unattainable level which causes them disappointment and might cause their future partners unrepairable damage to their self-esteem because they’ll think that in order to find a partner, they cannot be flawed and cannot make mistakes.

Glorification Of Illegal Activity

It’s not “cool” or “edgy” to pump yourself full of deadly and mind-altering substances you know absolutely nothing about. It doesn’t make you “badass” and it isn’t a personality trait unless that trait is stupid. Whatever your position is on drugs or alcohol or whatever, there is no excuse for putting the idea in the heads of young readers that doing things that are illegal and addictive and that might even get you killed is ok. Not only because most of your readers are younger than 21, but because it will always be dangerous to take drugs, commit crimes, and drink. Your choices are your choices. Don’t impose your habits and excuses on kids who don’t know any better.

Slut Shaming

News flash: it’s 2017, people. Nobody cares who you’re kissing or dating or having sex with. People are finally getting used to the idea that maybe, just maybe, it’s not the end of the world if you do whatever you want, as long as you’re not hurting yourself or anyone else. This recurring theme of “I hate this person because they do what they want with their body” is getting old and annoying. Believe what you will regarding religion and morals and what is right or wrong or whatever you want to believe in, but the second you start turning your story into a commentary on the decisions and beliefs of other people, you’re in the wrong. There are other, more creative reasons to make your characters hate each other than their sexual activity.

Forgetting The First Times

One of the most exciting parts of being a teenager is that everything you’re experiencing, you’re experiencing for the first time. Everything is confusing and exciting and 10x more painful or memorable or enjoyable, and that’s neglected all the time in YA. I don’t mean the common trope of the first kiss or the losing of virginity. I mean love and infatuation and loss and heartbreak; it’s all happening to them for the first time in their lives, and these events make up their memories that they will carry with them forever. Teenage years are incredibly heavy times for people. It is, after all, the years in which they learn the most and the fastest and where the majority of their brain development takes place. These moments that you’re writing, the first kiss, the first time having sex, the first time your character loses someone they love, they’re all going to determine how your character will develop in the future. Treat them that way. Teach young readers that it’s normal and perfectly okay to be scared and inexperienced and lost. That’s the bitter-sweet part of youth and it’s beautiful.

Bad Boys And Boring Girls

Bad Boys are, in reality, bad news. The real “bad boys” in this world are slimy, manipulative jerks who trick girls (usually more than one at a time) into thinking they have feelings for them, using them for things like sex or money, and then either end up controlling their entire lives, introducing drugs and problems, or breaking their hearts. It’s sad, but it’s reality. Yes, there’s always a cause for this behavior, and sometimes these bad boys grow out of it, but that’s not always the case. Portraying these bad boys as “changeable” is not only dangerous for the female readers but also the men in their future. If you make girls think that they can change whomever they’re with to be the perfect prince charming, they will never be satisfied with someone who is flawed (spoiler alert: everyone is flawed) and they may destroy the self-esteem of whoever they’re with by making them think they need to change to be lovable.

Boring Girls are, sort of, connected to bad boys in this sense. They show up in every story, which makes sense financially because authors who make more relatable main characters sell more books. It’s just demographics. But at the same time, this stretch for a wider audience can end up influencing girls’ expectations of themselves and their love lives. If you make every protagonist completely boring, compliant, and devoid of strong, defining traits, girls will take that as advice. They will learn that all a girl has to do to make people fall in love with them is sit quietly and be pretty, which is horrible, in case you hadn’t noticed. Teach girls to look up to strong characters with rich personalities. Nowadays, that counts as an original idea.

Generalization

Portraying every aspect of teenage life and teenagers themselves as if you opened a book full of cliches, closed your eyes and pointed at something is not ok. High schools and families and personalities are different wherever you go, and making blind generalizations about aspects of teenage life can not only change how your reader interprets their own lives, but how adult readers assume teenage life is when they’re not around. It is important to not reinforce the assumption that there is always a popular clique and mean jocks and awkward nerds and dead-beat stoners because these stereotypes are a way for people to justify their snap-judgements, and not only does that say a lot about you as an author, but that will breed a whole new generation of judgmental, close-minded people.

Glorification Of Unhealthy Relationship Behaviors

I’m gonna say this once: It is not “hot” to have the love interest constantly putting restrictions on their supposed loved one. It’s not okay to borderline stalk someone and use “I love you” as an excuse, even if the person reciprocates your feelings. It is unhealthy to ignore someone when they say “no, no, not now” or “no, stop, not here” when you’re in the middle of initiating sex or even just kissing. It is disgusting when romance, especially YA Romance, which has mostly young, impressionable readers taking in your messages, promotes these behaviors like they’re something to strive for. Like it or not, your writing is going to alter the way they imagine a “perfect” relationship. If you aren’t willing to take that responsibility seriously, you should not be writing YA, and especially not YA Romance.

[groovyeggdeputyscissors-blog]

Now that I have your attention: About ten days ago I accidentally stumbled upon a lengthy comment within a Facebook piece posted by my grandson’s partner. The gist of the comment was that Boomers were the cause of the problems in this country, and, basically, we’d all be dead soon, and things would get better.

I went nuts inside. I refuse to “get into it” with anyone on social media, so, with no way to vent, my anger level just kept increasing to an almost unbearable level, further bolstered by a Robert Reich video, which talked about how millennials felt about Boomers. I actually posted this video on my own FB Timeline because I thought the point made about needing a strong, third political party in this country, was important. But, the anger continued right through this morning, the day I need to post this piece, and nothing’s been written.

My first gut reaction, when I initially read the FB comment, was off the charts rambling anger:

Dear  Millennials; Get educated, read history, stop profiling, you’re as bad as everyone else. What have you Millennials ever done, anyway? “March for Our Lives” isn’t you, it was created by a younger, Generation Z. Your time has passed.  Where was your outrage, where were your actions, when Sandy Hook happened in 2012? Why haven’t you been protesting and marching while cops have been shooting unarmed black men and boys dead in the streets for the past ten years? 60 dead in Vegas wasn’t enough? There were 39,000 gun related deaths in the U.S. in 2017; why wasn’t that enough to get you involved? Until very recently, you, like Generation X (yes, your parents) before you, have been conspicuous by your absence, with little apparent involvement, or caring, about any of the human rights and social issues facing this country. Why is it 41% of white Millennials who voted, voted for Trump, or did you even know that? That compares to 52% of Boomers, not a huge spread. Talk to me after you’ve been beaten, gassed, or locked up, for protesting against an immoral war, against racial discrimination, for civil rights, and for women’s equal rights, as we did for almost a decade.

I even randomly pulled some Trump rally pics—Yup, see some Boomers…

  But I also see a whole lot of Generation X and Millennial people.

My ranting thoughts and emotions continued until I read a piece about this past weekend’s March for Our Lives, calling it the largest mass protest since the Viet Nam era. That’s when I realized that the same Facebook comment that set me off ten days ago, could just as easily have been made by me, about the previous generation, if social media had existed 50 years ago. In the 60’s I had the same attitude toward previous generations as that Millennial, who made the comment on Facebook, has about Boomers.

March for Our Lives, Washington, DC, 2018

  Viet Nam Protest March, Washington, DC, 1969

  Our only chance: Stop profiling. Stop dividing. Attack the real problems in this country

A lesson that I, and many of my generation, learned the hard way: Don’t assume that everyone in your generation is the same. When you are surrounded by like-minded people, whether in small groups, or marches of several hundred thousand, it becomes easy to fall into the trap, and believe: “My generation, we’re all the same.” Millennials, if you’re on campus, liberal— and you naturally surround yourself with similar people, remember: There are many others in your generation who think, and act, totally differently.  I came from a generation known for artistic Rennaissance, protests, and fighting for social change. When I see that 5 out of  10 of those Boomers who voted, cast their ballots for Trump in 2016, I realize that a whole of more of my generation either didn’t care about, or were against, the fights to end Viet Nam, stop discrimination, legislate civil rights, or institute women’s equal rights.

Millennials, 4 out of 10 of your voter generation isn’t on board with your agenda, either, or they wouldn’t have voted for Trump. Of course, figures only reflect those who actually voted; I don’t know what percentage of either generation picked up their marbles and went home after the rotten Hillary and DNC machines  eliminated Bernie Sanders.

If there is ever going to be any meaningful change in this country, like-minded people need, more than ever, to unite across all generations, races, genders, ethnic backgrounds, and issues. The more divided we are as a people, the better it is for the opposition. They count on us being divided.

We need, now more than ever, to be better educated, to realize that each and every problem this country faces is related, based on a Predatory Capitalist system. This is nothing new. Google, and read about, Smedley Butler, the World War I Marine Major General who, when he died, ridiculed and discredited, in 1940, was the most decorated Marine in U.S. History. He’s worth studying. Read War is a Racket which he wrote in 1935, clearly detailing how wars are paid for by taxpayers, paid with human lives, while major corporations reap enormous profits. Read about Wall Street’s attempted coup on Washington in reaction to Roosevelt’s changes in the banking system, and social changes with The New Deal. Smedley Butler was approached to march 500,000 troops, The American Liberty League, into Washington to seize control of the government. Smedley exposed the plot. The McCormick-Dickstein Committee verified the planned coup, troop camps around DC were broken down, and no one was prosecuted (it’s all on Congressional record). When you read the names of the people behind The American Liberty League, you’ll recognize many family names that were also behind the 2008 housing crisis, and worst economic times since the Great Depression.

Hit Google, and check out Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell speech, where he clearly warns about the power and control the Military Industrial Complex has over this country. Check YouTube and search:  President Jimmy Carter’s “Final Warning” speech. Stream or rent Michael Moore’s Capitalism, a Love Story, and SICKO. The problems we face in America are systemic, not generational. Rampant Opioid addiction, medical and drug costs (Pharmaceuticals), war, guns, healthcare, banking, fossil fuel energy: They’re all related. They’re all part of a broken system the Oligarchy controls, virtually rendering our government, as it was initially created, useless, or dangerous to it’s people— take your pick.

Once we realize and fully accept that the United States, as a nation, is an Oligarchy, not a Democracy, we’ll finally realize who the true enemies are, and know not to expect meaningful change from within our current system of government.

Until we understand that racial, ethnic, religious, sex and yes, generational divisions among us are not only beneficial to the ruling Oligarchy, but encouraged and fueled by it, then we will continue to be weak. It is in the Oligarchy’s best interest that we are an uneducated society that can easily be swayed by propaganda and slight-of-hand diversions. Today, Trump is the slight of hand, diverting our attention away from a runaway Congress who is taking more away from the people every day. Social Security and Medicare are next. And, while Trump diverts everyone’s attention away from legislation that’s being created in Congress, and while Congress convinces most of the country that the problem is that there will be no money for Social Security, no one will address the real issue: Social Security is a Trust, separate from the U.S. Government budget, funded by workers’ money. Congress won’t answer for the 26 TRILLION DOLLARS they have taken, and not paid back, from this fund over the years. I can almost guarantee that the 26 trillion will not be included in the figures GOP Congressional leaders project as proof of future lack of funding for Social Security.

There is enough wealth in this country to provide universal health care to every citizen, educate our young through college, provide a living wage to all working Americans, and still have corporations make decent profits. Do you think the ruling Oligarchy is going to give up one dime, give up one bit of wealth, control, and power to allow any of that to happen? Congress is working now to privatize student loans—that can’t turn out well for college grads; how many more average years will they be in debt after banks take over the program?

The propaganda machine is already at work on  March for our Lives in DC this past weekend. Initially, it was estimated that, nationwide, 1.2 million people marched, and according to march organizers, up to 800,000 marched in Washington. Digital Design & Imaging Service has estimated the Washington DC crowd to be just 200,000, which is being reported by mass media. I know it’s not scientific, but I’ve spent time at N.E. Patriots games in Foxboro with around 62,000 people and to me, from the footage I’ve seen, there were a lot more than 4 times that many people in DC.

I’m willing to bet that a couple of crumbs will be thrown to the peasants because of the outcry over mass killings in this county; bump stocks will probably be banned, background checks may become a little more thorough, and the age to buy weapons may move to 21. But, AR-15’s and AK-47’s will still be sold. The problem won’t go away, but weak legislation will quiet part of the outcry, anyway, and another part of the Oligarchy will have been protected.

When November of this year rolls around, I’m pretty sure that Democrats will obtain a majority in the House, and that 3/4’s of the 12 Senate seats will go to Democrats, because complacency won’t occur with voters in these elections. Non Republicans won’t sit home, they will turn out at the polls in huge numbers, and will vote for any Democrat, in lieu of an opposing GOP candidate. And, when the next Presidential election is held, I envision a Democrat, any Democrat running against Trump, to be voted into office. The trouble is, I don’t see anything changing. I think there have been 12 Presidents in my lifetime. As administrations and Congresses have come and gone, I have witnessed more and more taken from the people, and passed to the Oligarchy, regardless of whether the President was a Democrat or Republican, or whether Democrats or Republicans maintained a majority in Congress. The standard of living for the people this country has continued to decline, as has hope for a better future for upcoming generations. Too few control too much, including politicians, for things to ever turn in the right direction for our people under the current system.

The only hope I see is for a strong, third party to develop in this country. Bernie was close, but a Democrat, so he was destroyed by the Hillary/DNC machine. We need a third party candidate, and candidates, who can make it with grass routes support of the people, and without the help of Wall Street giants who currently influence and control the direction in which our country goes on any issues, at any given time. But, we, the opposition to the Oligarchy, have to be united for any real change to occur. We have to unite on all the issues, not just pick the one that directly affects us, because all of the issues are related. Maybe it will be Generation Z who will lead the charge and fight the good fight. But, it will take the unified support of everyone who realizes the injustices and wrongs in this country, yes, even Boomers—more than you think—for them to succeed.

                    OK Millennials, you suck too… Now that I have your attention: About ten days ago I accidentally stumbled upon a lengthy comment within a Facebook piece posted by my grandson's partner.

[foursprout-blog]

This Is How To Quit Bad Habits Without Willpower: 3 Secrets From Neuroscience

New Post has been published on http://foursprout.com/happiness/this-is-how-to-quit-bad-habits-without-willpower-3-secrets-from-neuroscience/

This Is How To Quit Bad Habits Without Willpower: 3 Secrets From Neuroscience

***

Before we commence with the festivities, I wanted to thank everyone for helping my first book become a Wall Street Journal bestseller. To check it out, click here.

***

Got any serious bad habits? The extra-strength ones with the FDA warning. The kind you really beat yourself up about — but still engage in all the time?

Procrastination that screws up the quality of your work? Epic tidal waves of laziness? Or cardiac-threatening levels of overwork? Snapping at the ones you love? Or not speaking up even when you know you should?

We’re going to turn everything you know about bad habits on its head. For starters, here’s the good news: you’re not lazy, you’re not a screw up, and you’re not a bad person. In fact, you don’t actually have “bad habits” at all. Those tempting or nagging voices in your head aren’t evil. Actually, they’re trying to help you.

Yeah, I know: I have a lot of ‘splaining to do. But before it all makes sense, we’ll need to wade into a bit more crazy. Pixar films, neuroscience, multiple personalities, mindfulness, “Fight Club”, and boatloads of you talking to yourself like you’re nuts…

Yes, weird, but totally legit. In fact, there’s a whole system of psychology based around this: Internal Family Systems (IFS.) It’s been shown to help people with everything under the sun from depression, to anxiety, eating disorders, addictions, and even some of the most serious stuff like PTSD.

From Internal Family Systems Skills Training Manual:

In the IFS Complex Trauma Study, only one subject out of 13 still qualified for a diagnosis of PTSD after finishing 16 weeks of IFS therapy.

This is a system that can help you overcome almost any bad behavior, deal with deep-seated issues and even help you love yourself a bit more.

We’re going deep here. Warning: we’re entering “the therapy zone.” It’s gonna get touchy-feely and a little awkward. I’m often skeptical of this kinda stuff myself. But when something works, it works.

Alright, hold my inner child’s hand and we’ll do this together. Let’s get to it…

  You’re Not Lazy, Weak, Or Awful

I posted recently about “the modular mind.” Basically, this is the theory that there is no singular “you.” There are many different selves inside you that take turns running the ship and that’s why human behavior (including yours and mine) can be so random and frustrating. When you say, “I wasn’t myself” that’s far more accurate than you ever thought.

(I’m not going to rehash the entire theory because regular readers would rise up and slay me for repeating myself. If you want the full scoop, click here.)

There are many different yous in your head. William James was saying it back in the 19th century, and now every major division of psychology is on board with this idea, including neuroscience.

From The Body Keeps the Score:

Michael Gazzaniga, who conducted pioneering split-brain research, concluded that the mind is composed of semiautonomous functioning modules, each of which has a special role. In his book The Social Brain (1985) he writes, “But what of the idea that the self is not a unified being, and there may exist within us several realms of consciousness? . . . From our [split-brain] studies the new idea emerges that there are literally several selves, and they do not necessarily ‘converse’ with each other internally.” MIT scientist Marvin Minsky, a pioneer of artificial intelligence, declared: “The legend of the single Self can only divert us from the target of that inquiry. . . . [I]t can make sense to think there exists, inside your brain, a society of different minds. Like members of a family, the different minds can work together to help each other, each still having its own mental experiences that the others never know about.”

I know what some of you are thinking:

And, yes, Inside Out *is* based on this research. (In fact, Dr. Frank Anderson acted as a consultant to Pixar during the making of the film and wrote one of the books I read to prepare for this post.)

So how does this relate to bad habits? You don’t have “bad habits” — you have different selves with different goals in your head, all trying to do what they think is best for the greater “you.”

The problem is they’re not always right about what’s best and the goals of Self 1 may conflict with the goals of Self 2. (Paging Tyler Durden. Tyler Durden please come to the front desk.)

IFS therapists refer to the different “yous” as “parts.”

From Self-Therapy:

Parts are entities of their own, with their own feelings, beliefs, motivations, and memories. It is especially important to understand that parts have motivations for everything they do. Nothing is just done out of habit. Nothing is just a pattern of thinking or behavior you learned. Everything (except for purely physiological reactions) is done by a part for a reason, even though that reason may be unconscious.

Through this lens, I see bad habits as an “autoimmune disorder of the mind.” And with that, crazy as it may sound, things actually start to make a lot more sense.

How can you procrastinate and feel guilty about it at the same time? Two different “yous” disagreeing. Part of you is afraid of being a loser and wants to accomplish things — but another part of you is afraid of being all stressed out and wants to watch Netflix and eat popcorn. Neither is “lazy.”

(It might also explain how a blogger’s ex can have both fear of abandonment and fear of intimacy, but that’s a story for another day, Bubba.)

You need to understand what other-you is trying to accomplish and find a better way to address the underlying need so you can both get on the same page.

(To learn more about the science of a successful life, check out my new book here.)

So who are these other selves? When it comes to problematic behaviors, there are three flavors we need to be concerned with…

  Exiles, Managers and Firefighters

We all have fears. And we try to cope with those fears. And by “we” I mean the “we” in your head. Allow me to introduce the cast of characters that are causing the “problems”:

Exiles:

This is the annoyingly dramatic name that therapists give to the seat of your deep, dark fears and long-held negative beliefs. “I’m stupid.” “I’m a failure.” “I’m unlovable.” “I can’t trust anyone.”

Yup, this is the “inner child.” (It might be the first time you’ve heard the term in a non-mocking context. I mean, I’m going to mock it plenty because it’s a corny term, but this is its more proper usage.)

Bad stuff happens to us and we take away painful lessons that we don’t let go. And these fears often unconsciously guide our actions in frustrating ways.

Managers:

So how do you still manage to function with those fears? Well, the inner child has an overprotective parent.  These are “Managers.” That nagging voice in your head. It says you’re not working hard enough. That you’re weak. That you need to do more. That the world is going to end if you don’t make everyone happy and live up to expectations.

It thinks if you gave in to the fears of the inner child you’d be paralyzed, so it harasses you endlessly and occasionally steers “you” to behave in ways that aren’t aligned with your goals.

From Internal Family Systems Skills Training Manual:

We call proactive parts “managers” because they try to manage our lives in ways that keep emotional pain out of consciousness. They often focus on motivating us to improve, work hard, be productive and be socially acceptable. At the extreme, however, these aims can devolve into tactics like perfectionism, intellectualizing, one-sided caretaking, obsessing about appearance, conflict avoidance at great personal cost and trying to control or please others.

At times, this is useful. You do need to go to work when you don’t feel like it, or you’ll lose your job and be miserable. Then again, Managers may also nag you to keep working until you pass out — also making you miserable.

Managers still see you as an irresponsible child and feel you wouldn’t wear clean underwear if they didn’t remind you 50 times a day.

Firefighters:

Sometimes the Manager doesn’t do its job well. Or you just don’t listen. And the Exile’s fears get all wound up. Maybe the Exile is terrified of losing its independence — always being told what to do and feeling disrespected.

To prevent the Exile from totally freaking out, the “independence” Firefighter goes extreme to immediately solve the problem. “DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!” And you procrastinate by eating ice cream and playing video games. (The independence Firefighter is, unsurprisingly, perpetually 15 years old.)

From Internal Family Systems Skills Training Manual:

(Firefighters) share the same goal as managers; they want to exile vulnerable parts and extinguish emotional pain. However, (firefighters) are emergency response workers. They get activated after the fact, when the memories and emotions of exiles break through despite the repressive efforts of managers. (Firefighters) tend to be fierce and use extreme measures that managers abhor, like alcohol and drug abuse, binge eating, excessive shopping, promiscuity, cutting, suicide and even homicide.

You’ve got fears, whether they’re remaining independent, or not being liked, or not feeling like a failure. The Managers try to solve them in one way. And when things really go south, the Firefighters try to solve them in the most immediate, extreme way possible. They’re all trying their best — but they’re not always effective.

So this dysfunctional family is fighting in your head and your behavior looks like a chaotic mess because you’re not even conscious of the conflicting goals everyone has.

You can’t “banish” any of these three so we gotta get them on the same page. That means keeping the Firefighters calm, getting the Managers to trust you, and figuring out what the Exile really needs to feel secure.

(To learn the seven-step morning ritual that will make you happy all day, click here.)

Alright, Dr. Jekyll, get everyone in the car. We’re going to therapy…

  1) Get Calm

Sit down somewhere quiet. Take a few deep breaths. Relax. You want to be chill, centered and accepting.

Why? Because you want to make sure you’re you. Getting emotional is what signals the Manager to start nagging or — even worse– the Firefighters to start whacking at the front door with axes.

Now think about the primary “bad habit” or issue you’re dealing with. Picture the “Manager” behind it:

Is it an overprotective parent that pushes you to work too hard?

Or a slacker that’s always tempting you to procrastinate?

A nagging perfectionist voice that says you’re never smart enough or beautiful enough?

Or a critical voice that tells you not to trust people?

(To learn the 3 secrets from neuroscience that will make you emotionally intelligent, click here.)

Take a second and imagine that voice as a real, full-blown person. Because you’re about to have a conversation with them.

Look, I told you this was going to get weird…

  2) Talk To Them… Um, I Mean, You

Yes, you’re going to talk to yourself like you have multiple personalities. Because, well, you do. It’s not quite as odd as you think, really.

Research shows talking to yourself can make you smarter, improve your memory, help you focus and even increase athletic performance. And talking to yourself in the second person (saying “you” instead of “I��) makes a difference:

Altogether, the current research showed that second-person self-talk strengthens both actual behavior performance and prospective behavioral intentions more than first-person self-talk.

Beyond that, we’re talking about “bad” behavior here. You need to get your ego out of the way. It’s a lot easier to honestly answer questions about bad habits you aren’t proud of when you can ask “someone else” why “they” do that instead of why “I” do that.

So play along. Stay relaxed. Don’t try and get this voice that’s been bothering you to go away. We want to hear what they have to say. Be curious and compassionate, not all judgy. Remember: they’re just trying to help (in their annoying, ineffective way.)

Ask them questions. A few good ones are:

What’s your role in my life?

What are you trying to protect me from?

And the big money question:

What are you afraid would happen if you didn’t do this job anymore?

How would that Manager respond? Really inhabit the role. It’s not that hard — you’ve probably been hearing this voice in your head for years. A “Procrastinating Manager” might reply with something like this:

My role in your life? I have to make sure you relax and don’t get all stressed out about work. I’m trying to protect you from treating every project at the office like a life or death scenario. If I didn’t do my job you’d be a basket case. So I encourage you to have some fun on the internet and play with your phone to relax. And, frankly, you treat me like some slacker when all I want is to make sure your head doesn’t explode from stress.

Accept and acknowledge what they say to you. Don’t get in an argument with yourself (although, from my perspective, that would be really funny.)

If you feel like you understand one another, next you want to ask for permission to talk to the Exile. Yeah, this is odd. Like some sort of therapy séance. But it works. That Manager’s voice has been chattering at you for years. It’s a person. If you don’t give it some respect, you’ll just get more stress.

(To learn the 4 rituals from neuroscience that will make you happy, click here.)

Did you get permission? Okay, here’s where it gets really interesting. And weird. But interesting…

  3) Talk To The Exile

Meet your inner child. Aren’t they adorable? They look like you but smaller and probably scared out of their wits — which is why you’re here.

You know what the Manager is doing to achieve its goals, whether that’s making you work too hard, not work enough, or occasionally screaming at the people who love you most. So now we’re getting to the meat.

Ask the kid what they’re afraid of. Inhabit the role. What fear is so powerful that this kid actually has employees running around to protect him?

Be gentle. If the kid (and, again, that’s you) gets worked up, you may have those Firefighters smashing your windows as you go all emo and need to spend the evening on the couch eating ice cream and watching reruns of your favorite tv show. So stay calm. Be gentle. And listen:

I’m afraid of failing. Doing the work makes me think about it not turning out well. And then I’ll be a loser and no one will like me.

So you know what the kid’s afraid of. And why the Manager does what it does to protect them. And so rather than a failure of willpower, you know why — deep down — you’re engaging in those “bad habits.”

The kid’s fears might be totally extreme or unfounded. But they’re your fears. And you’re acting on them. So, in that sense, they’re real and need to be taken seriously. Don’t dismiss anything.

You want to start addressing these underlying concerns that your inner rugrat has. Fix those and the bad habits take care of themselves. Assure the kid and the Manager that you’re going to work on this. You’ll make a plan. That you’ll be accountable. Maybe even involve a friend.

Sound ridiculous? What’s ridiculous is endlessly trying different ineffective ways to stop procrastinating when you could be addressing the underlying issue. If you get rid of the fear, the Manager (let alone the Firefighters) don’t need to do their jobs anymore and they go away. (Or maybe your mental HR department reassigns them to another role like making you unable to get a song out of your head. Who knows.)

Of course, if you’re dealing with extremely serious issues you want to do all this with a therapist, not off a blog post written by some random guy on the internet. I hope that’s obvious but I have an internal Manager with a law degree who insisted I type it because my own inner child’s deep-seated fear is getting sued.

You don’t need willpower or more self-control or discipline. You need to get to know yourself a little better. So ask. And listen. And you’ll be amazed what you’ll tell yourself.

(To learn the six rituals from ancient wisdom that will make you happy, click here.)

Okay, your time in therapy is up. Let’s do a quick review and find out the best part about talking to Managers, inner children and the rest of the circus in your noggin…

  Sum Up

Here’s how to quit bad habits without willpower:

There are no bad habits, just different selves with conflicting goals: You can read this post for more, or you can go watch Inside Out. (One of these is a far more effective option. The other was written by me.)

Exiles, Managers and Firefighters: The three big categories of voices in your head. Exiles have deep-seated fears, Managers make sure those don’t get triggered, and when they do get triggered, Firefighters put out the fire (and destroy your house in the process.)

Stay calm and talk to the Manager: Find out why they do what they do by asking… well, you.

Talk to your inner child: I’m cringing that I typed that. But, corny as it sounds, it really does help. Discover your fears. That’s what’s driving your “bad behavior.”

This won’t be quick. It won’t be easy. I have oversimplified the process because some people are already whining that this post is too long. (Whatever. They only read the “Sum Up” anyway.)

You probably have multiple Exiles, and a bunch of Managers and a squadron of Firefighters — complete with their own adorable Dalmatian. (You don’t need to have a conversation with the Dalmatian, but if you’re feeling really creative you may mentally pet him.)

Understand what’s really driving your behavior and you can really fix your life. Find out what your fears are. Get to the root of the issue and you won’t need 37 new ineffective lifehacks every week. (Did I just put myself out of a job? Crap.)

You hear a lot about “knowing yourself,” “loving yourself” and “being your own best friend.” Those sayings are warm and fuzzy. They’re also vague platitudes that you have no idea how to actually get started on. Well, we just changed that.

There are multiple yous. You can get to know them by talking to them, as awkward as the process may be. And instead of rejecting nagging or tempting voices, you can befriend them, because as misguided as their actions are sometimes, they really do want the best for you.

From Self-Therapy:

Loving yourself really means loving each of your parts. Befriending yourself means developing a relationship with each of your parts and having them trust you.

Get to know yourself so you can love yourself. All your selves.

Join over 320,000 readers. Get a free weekly update via email here.

Related posts:

New Neuroscience Reveals 4 Rituals That Will Make You Happy

New Harvard Research Reveals A Fun Way To Be More Successful

How To Get People To Like You: 7 Ways From An FBI Behavior Expert

The post This Is How To Quit Bad Habits Without Willpower: 3 Secrets From Neuroscience appeared first on Barking Up The Wrong Tree.

[foursprouthappiness-blog]

This Is How To Quit Bad Habits Without Willpower: 3 Secrets From Neuroscience

New Post has been published on http://foursprout.com/happiness/this-is-how-to-quit-bad-habits-without-willpower-3-secrets-from-neuroscience/

This Is How To Quit Bad Habits Without Willpower: 3 Secrets From Neuroscience

***

Before we commence with the festivities, I wanted to thank everyone for helping my first book become a Wall Street Journal bestseller. To check it out, click here.

***

Got any serious bad habits? The extra-strength ones with the FDA warning. The kind you really beat yourself up about — but still engage in all the time?

Procrastination that screws up the quality of your work? Epic tidal waves of laziness? Or cardiac-threatening levels of overwork? Snapping at the ones you love? Or not speaking up even when you know you should?

We’re going to turn everything you know about bad habits on its head. For starters, here’s the good news: you’re not lazy, you’re not a screw up, and you’re not a bad person. In fact, you don’t actually have “bad habits” at all. Those tempting or nagging voices in your head aren’t evil. Actually, they’re trying to help you.

Yeah, I know: I have a lot of ‘splaining to do. But before it all makes sense, we’ll need to wade into a bit more crazy. Pixar films, neuroscience, multiple personalities, mindfulness, “Fight Club”, and boatloads of you talking to yourself like you’re nuts…

Yes, weird, but totally legit. In fact, there’s a whole system of psychology based around this: Internal Family Systems (IFS.) It’s been shown to help people with everything under the sun from depression, to anxiety, eating disorders, addictions, and even some of the most serious stuff like PTSD.

From Internal Family Systems Skills Training Manual:

In the IFS Complex Trauma Study, only one subject out of 13 still qualified for a diagnosis of PTSD after finishing 16 weeks of IFS therapy.

This is a system that can help you overcome almost any bad behavior, deal with deep-seated issues and even help you love yourself a bit more.

We’re going deep here. Warning: we’re entering “the therapy zone.” It’s gonna get touchy-feely and a little awkward. I’m often skeptical of this kinda stuff myself. But when something works, it works.

Alright, hold my inner child’s hand and we’ll do this together. Let’s get to it…

  You’re Not Lazy, Weak, Or Awful

I posted recently about “the modular mind.” Basically, this is the theory that there is no singular “you.” There are many different selves inside you that take turns running the ship and that’s why human behavior (including yours and mine) can be so random and frustrating. When you say, “I wasn’t myself” that’s far more accurate than you ever thought.

(I’m not going to rehash the entire theory because regular readers would rise up and slay me for repeating myself. If you want the full scoop, click here.)

There are many different yous in your head. William James was saying it back in the 19th century, and now every major division of psychology is on board with this idea, including neuroscience.

From The Body Keeps the Score:

Michael Gazzaniga, who conducted pioneering split-brain research, concluded that the mind is composed of semiautonomous functioning modules, each of which has a special role. In his book The Social Brain (1985) he writes, “But what of the idea that the self is not a unified being, and there may exist within us several realms of consciousness? . . . From our [split-brain] studies the new idea emerges that there are literally several selves, and they do not necessarily ‘converse’ with each other internally.” MIT scientist Marvin Minsky, a pioneer of artificial intelligence, declared: “The legend of the single Self can only divert us from the target of that inquiry. . . . [I]t can make sense to think there exists, inside your brain, a society of different minds. Like members of a family, the different minds can work together to help each other, each still having its own mental experiences that the others never know about.”

I know what some of you are thinking:

And, yes, Inside Out *is* based on this research. (In fact, Dr. Frank Anderson acted as a consultant to Pixar during the making of the film and wrote one of the books I read to prepare for this post.)

So how does this relate to bad habits? You don’t have “bad habits” — you have different selves with different goals in your head, all trying to do what they think is best for the greater “you.”

The problem is they’re not always right about what’s best and the goals of Self 1 may conflict with the goals of Self 2. (Paging Tyler Durden. Tyler Durden please come to the front desk.)

IFS therapists refer to the different “yous” as “parts.”

From Self-Therapy:

Parts are entities of their own, with their own feelings, beliefs, motivations, and memories. It is especially important to understand that parts have motivations for everything they do. Nothing is just done out of habit. Nothing is just a pattern of thinking or behavior you learned. Everything (except for purely physiological reactions) is done by a part for a reason, even though that reason may be unconscious.

Through this lens, I see bad habits as an “autoimmune disorder of the mind.” And with that, crazy as it may sound, things actually start to make a lot more sense.

How can you procrastinate and feel guilty about it at the same time? Two different “yous” disagreeing. Part of you is afraid of being a loser and wants to accomplish things — but another part of you is afraid of being all stressed out and wants to watch Netflix and eat popcorn. Neither is “lazy.”

(It might also explain how a blogger’s ex can have both fear of abandonment and fear of intimacy, but that’s a story for another day, Bubba.)

You need to understand what other-you is trying to accomplish and find a better way to address the underlying need so you can both get on the same page.

(To learn more about the science of a successful life, check out my new book here.)

So who are these other selves? When it comes to problematic behaviors, there are three flavors we need to be concerned with…

  Exiles, Managers and Firefighters

We all have fears. And we try to cope with those fears. And by “we” I mean the “we” in your head. Allow me to introduce the cast of characters that are causing the “problems”:

Exiles:

This is the annoyingly dramatic name that therapists give to the seat of your deep, dark fears and long-held negative beliefs. “I’m stupid.” “I’m a failure.” “I’m unlovable.” “I can’t trust anyone.”

Yup, this is the “inner child.” (It might be the first time you’ve heard the term in a non-mocking context. I mean, I’m going to mock it plenty because it’s a corny term, but this is its more proper usage.)

Bad stuff happens to us and we take away painful lessons that we don’t let go. And these fears often unconsciously guide our actions in frustrating ways.

Managers:

So how do you still manage to function with those fears? Well, the inner child has an overprotective parent.  These are “Managers.” That nagging voice in your head. It says you’re not working hard enough. That you’re weak. That you need to do more. That the world is going to end if you don’t make everyone happy and live up to expectations.

It thinks if you gave in to the fears of the inner child you’d be paralyzed, so it harasses you endlessly and occasionally steers “you” to behave in ways that aren’t aligned with your goals.

From Internal Family Systems Skills Training Manual:

We call proactive parts “managers” because they try to manage our lives in ways that keep emotional pain out of consciousness. They often focus on motivating us to improve, work hard, be productive and be socially acceptable. At the extreme, however, these aims can devolve into tactics like perfectionism, intellectualizing, one-sided caretaking, obsessing about appearance, conflict avoidance at great personal cost and trying to control or please others.

At times, this is useful. You do need to go to work when you don’t feel like it, or you’ll lose your job and be miserable. Then again, Managers may also nag you to keep working until you pass out — also making you miserable.

Managers still see you as an irresponsible child and feel you wouldn’t wear clean underwear if they didn’t remind you 50 times a day.

Firefighters:

Sometimes the Manager doesn’t do its job well. Or you just don’t listen. And the Exile’s fears get all wound up. Maybe the Exile is terrified of losing its independence — always being told what to do and feeling disrespected.

To prevent the Exile from totally freaking out, the “independence” Firefighter goes extreme to immediately solve the problem. “DON’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!” And you procrastinate by eating ice cream and playing video games. (The independence Firefighter is, unsurprisingly, perpetually 15 years old.)

From Internal Family Systems Skills Training Manual:

(Firefighters) share the same goal as managers; they want to exile vulnerable parts and extinguish emotional pain. However, (firefighters) are emergency response workers. They get activated after the fact, when the memories and emotions of exiles break through despite the repressive efforts of managers. (Firefighters) tend to be fierce and use extreme measures that managers abhor, like alcohol and drug abuse, binge eating, excessive shopping, promiscuity, cutting, suicide and even homicide.

You’ve got fears, whether they’re remaining independent, or not being liked, or not feeling like a failure. The Managers try to solve them in one way. And when things really go south, the Firefighters try to solve them in the most immediate, extreme way possible. They’re all trying their best — but they’re not always effective.

So this dysfunctional family is fighting in your head and your behavior looks like a chaotic mess because you’re not even conscious of the conflicting goals everyone has.

You can’t “banish” any of these three so we gotta get them on the same page. That means keeping the Firefighters calm, getting the Managers to trust you, and figuring out what the Exile really needs to feel secure.

(To learn the seven-step morning ritual that will make you happy all day, click here.)

Alright, Dr. Jekyll, get everyone in the car. We’re going to therapy…

  1) Get Calm

Sit down somewhere quiet. Take a few deep breaths. Relax. You want to be chill, centered and accepting.

Why? Because you want to make sure you’re you. Getting emotional is what signals the Manager to start nagging or — even worse– the Firefighters to start whacking at the front door with axes.

Now think about the primary “bad habit” or issue you’re dealing with. Picture the “Manager” behind it:

Is it an overprotective parent that pushes you to work too hard?

Or a slacker that’s always tempting you to procrastinate?

A nagging perfectionist voice that says you’re never smart enough or beautiful enough?

Or a critical voice that tells you not to trust people?

(To learn the 3 secrets from neuroscience that will make you emotionally intelligent, click here.)

Take a second and imagine that voice as a real, full-blown person. Because you’re about to have a conversation with them.

Look, I told you this was going to get weird…

  2) Talk To Them… Um, I Mean, You

Yes, you’re going to talk to yourself like you have multiple personalities. Because, well, you do. It’s not quite as odd as you think, really.

Research shows talking to yourself can make you smarter, improve your memory, help you focus and even increase athletic performance. And talking to yourself in the second person (saying “you” instead of “I”) makes a difference:

Altogether, the current research showed that second-person self-talk strengthens both actual behavior performance and prospective behavioral intentions more than first-person self-talk.

Beyond that, we’re talking about “bad” behavior here. You need to get your ego out of the way. It’s a lot easier to honestly answer questions about bad habits you aren’t proud of when you can ask “someone else” why “they” do that instead of why “I” do that.

So play along. Stay relaxed. Don’t try and get this voice that’s been bothering you to go away. We want to hear what they have to say. Be curious and compassionate, not all judgy. Remember: they’re just trying to help (in their annoying, ineffective way.)

Ask them questions. A few good ones are:

What’s your role in my life?

What are you trying to protect me from?

And the big money question:

What are you afraid would happen if you didn’t do this job anymore?

How would that Manager respond? Really inhabit the role. It’s not that hard — you’ve probably been hearing this voice in your head for years. A “Procrastinating Manager” might reply with something like this:

My role in your life? I have to make sure you relax and don’t get all stressed out about work. I’m trying to protect you from treating every project at the office like a life or death scenario. If I didn’t do my job you’d be a basket case. So I encourage you to have some fun on the internet and play with your phone to relax. And, frankly, you treat me like some slacker when all I want is to make sure your head doesn’t explode from stress.

Accept and acknowledge what they say to you. Don’t get in an argument with yourself (although, from my perspective, that would be really funny.)

If you feel like you understand one another, next you want to ask for permission to talk to the Exile. Yeah, this is odd. Like some sort of therapy séance. But it works. That Manager’s voice has been chattering at you for years. It’s a person. If you don’t give it some respect, you’ll just get more stress.

(To learn the 4 rituals from neuroscience that will make you happy, click here.)

Did you get permission? Okay, here’s where it gets really interesting. And weird. But interesting…

  3) Talk To The Exile

Meet your inner child. Aren’t they adorable? They look like you but smaller and probably scared out of their wits — which is why you’re here.

You know what the Manager is doing to achieve its goals, whether that’s making you work too hard, not work enough, or occasionally screaming at the people who love you most. So now we’re getting to the meat.

Ask the kid what they’re afraid of. Inhabit the role. What fear is so powerful that this kid actually has employees running around to protect him?

Be gentle. If the kid (and, again, that’s you) gets worked up, you may have those Firefighters smashing your windows as you go all emo and need to spend the evening on the couch eating ice cream and watching reruns of your favorite tv show. So stay calm. Be gentle. And listen:

I’m afraid of failing. Doing the work makes me think about it not turning out well. And then I’ll be a loser and no one will like me.

So you know what the kid’s afraid of. And why the Manager does what it does to protect them. And so rather than a failure of willpower, you know why — deep down — you’re engaging in those “bad habits.”

The kid’s fears might be totally extreme or unfounded. But they’re your fears. And you’re acting on them. So, in that sense, they’re real and need to be taken seriously. Don’t dismiss anything.

You want to start addressing these underlying concerns that your inner rugrat has. Fix those and the bad habits take care of themselves. Assure the kid and the Manager that you’re going to work on this. You’ll make a plan. That you’ll be accountable. Maybe even involve a friend.

Sound ridiculous? What’s ridiculous is endlessly trying different ineffective ways to stop procrastinating when you could be addressing the underlying issue. If you get rid of the fear, the Manager (let alone the Firefighters) don’t need to do their jobs anymore and they go away. (Or maybe your mental HR department reassigns them to another role like making you unable to get a song out of your head. Who knows.)

Of course, if you’re dealing with extremely serious issues you want to do all this with a therapist, not off a blog post written by some random guy on the internet. I hope that’s obvious but I have an internal Manager with a law degree who insisted I type it because my own inner child’s deep-seated fear is getting sued.

You don’t need willpower or more self-control or discipline. You need to get to know yourself a little better. So ask. And listen. And you’ll be amazed what you’ll tell yourself.

(To learn the six rituals from ancient wisdom that will make you happy, click here.)

Okay, your time in therapy is up. Let’s do a quick review and find out the best part about talking to Managers, inner children and the rest of the circus in your noggin…

  Sum Up

Here’s how to quit bad habits without willpower:

There are no bad habits, just different selves with conflicting goals: You can read this post for more, or you can go watch Inside Out. (One of these is a far more effective option. The other was written by me.)

Exiles, Managers and Firefighters: The three big categories of voices in your head. Exiles have deep-seated fears, Managers make sure those don’t get triggered, and when they do get triggered, Firefighters put out the fire (and destroy your house in the process.)

Stay calm and talk to the Manager: Find out why they do what they do by asking… well, you.

Talk to your inner child: I’m cringing that I typed that. But, corny as it sounds, it really does help. Discover your fears. That’s what’s driving your “bad behavior.”

This won’t be quick. It won’t be easy. I have oversimplified the process because some people are already whining that this post is too long. (Whatever. They only read the “Sum Up” anyway.)

You probably have multiple Exiles, and a bunch of Managers and a squadron of Firefighters — complete with their own adorable Dalmatian. (You don’t need to have a conversation with the Dalmatian, but if you’re feeling really creative you may mentally pet him.)

Understand what’s really driving your behavior and you can really fix your life. Find out what your fears are. Get to the root of the issue and you won’t need 37 new ineffective lifehacks every week. (Did I just put myself out of a job? Crap.)

You hear a lot about “knowing yourself,” “loving yourself” and “being your own best friend.” Those sayings are warm and fuzzy. They’re also vague platitudes that you have no idea how to actually get started on. Well, we just changed that.

There are multiple yous. You can get to know them by talking to them, as awkward as the process may be. And instead of rejecting nagging or tempting voices, you can befriend them, because as misguided as their actions are sometimes, they really do want the best for you.

From Self-Therapy:

Loving yourself really means loving each of your parts. Befriending yourself means developing a relationship with each of your parts and having them trust you.

Get to know yourself so you can love yourself. All your selves.

Join over 320,000 readers. Get a free weekly update via email here.

Related posts:

New Neuroscience Reveals 4 Rituals That Will Make You Happy

New Harvard Research Reveals A Fun Way To Be More Successful

How To Get People To Like You: 7 Ways From An FBI Behavior Expert

The post This Is How To Quit Bad Habits Without Willpower: 3 Secrets From Neuroscience appeared first on Barking Up The Wrong Tree.