I've begun to work more, which has turned out to be a good thing for both the bank account and my sanity, but as a result I haven't written here much lately. I'll have to work on that! After March is over I will have a bit more time, as I took a temporary chair massage job just through March. My other job is at a gym, with child care (!!!) so Anton comes with me. That's been fun so far. And I'm still commuting to see clients in New Orleans twice a month.
I read two books recently that had some wonderful elements, but that ultimately I found disappointing. One was by my favorite author, Joyce Carol Oates. I've read several of her novels, and liked them all, but some more than others. This one, I'll Take You There, had an interesting premise, great characters, and was, of course, written in her wonderfully perceptive and evocative prose...but the plot? Meh. I kept waiting for something really big to happen, and it just didn't. Or actually, there were some events that could be considered "big," yet something about the way they happened lacked the impact I anticipated. It's hard to describe. I have another of her books "on deck," so we'll see how that one is.
The next book I read was Eleanor Brown's The Weird Sisters. I picked this one up at a book store because it looked awesome. And lots of things about it were awesome: a quirky family with a Shakespearean scholar dad, an ailing mom, and three adult sisters who all happened to be at crisis/turning points in their lives - all back together under one roof. The exploration of birth order dynamics was quite interesting. There were some beautiful scenes. And yet, all three sisters' problems, which seemed at the outset to be very complex, were basically neatly solved by Perfect Men. Ugh. All of the elements that were NOT about romance in this book were so great, but the romance plots seemed really stale (one of the sisters literally runs into a man she likes...gah, will people please retire the accidental physical collision device???) and predictable. Having said that, I would read more by Brown in the future, because, as I said, there was a lot I liked.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
In praise of college theater
I saw three plays this past week, which might be a record for me. First was Pride and Prejudice at LSU, then Eiffel Tower Revisited, also at LSU, then Anton in Show Business at Loyola (which David and I dragged ourselves to NOLA in frigid weather despite having irritating colds to see - and it was totally worth it!).
Since all of these plays were on college campuses, with casts comprised mostly, or totally, of students, I've been thinking about some aspects of college theater that I think are pretty cool - despite the occasional presence of what David calls "studenty acting."
1. Cross-gender and generally non-traditional casting. It's so much more fun (and educational) for an actor to play characters different outside of their own age and gender. In college, you get a chance to do this. Thankfully, new plays are beginning to reflect the reality that there are lots of women and people of color in theater (and, um, in the world), but so many of the "classics" offer few female parts. Solution: let the women play male parts. They can do it - they're actors. Also, give the audience some credit. Their brains are capable of processing, say, a 20 year old playing another 20 year old's mother, or siblings of different races. I promise.
2. Experimentation. Sure, sometimes it goes horribly wrong, but it's still better than recycling the same tired shows over and over. Colleges can afford to experiment, because they're not beholden to certain demographics of season ticket holders like a lot of professional theaters can be. In fact, they can put on just about anything they like, and have an instant audience of students who are required to see the show because they're taking a theater course. Ha.
3. Budget. Okay, I know theater departments never have enough money. They're underfunded, etc. But they still have lots more money than a lot of community theaters and small theater companies. That means you get great sound and light boards to fiddle around with, and good costumes and sets. You also don't have to scramble for backstage crew, because that's yet another thing you can require of students taking a theater course! Ha. Ha.
4. Energy. There's nothing like excited, eager, not-yet-jaded college students to breathe some life into a show. I love working with college students because they love to work! In fact, they're often so happy to be cast in a show that they (gasp!) show up for rehearsal! And sometimes they even (gasp!) learn their lines well before dress rehearsal! And there are moments, from the audience, when you can feel this excitement, this pure joy of discovery, crackling like electricity through the air. It's hard to be a cynical old theater person when that happens.
Since all of these plays were on college campuses, with casts comprised mostly, or totally, of students, I've been thinking about some aspects of college theater that I think are pretty cool - despite the occasional presence of what David calls "studenty acting."
1. Cross-gender and generally non-traditional casting. It's so much more fun (and educational) for an actor to play characters different outside of their own age and gender. In college, you get a chance to do this. Thankfully, new plays are beginning to reflect the reality that there are lots of women and people of color in theater (and, um, in the world), but so many of the "classics" offer few female parts. Solution: let the women play male parts. They can do it - they're actors. Also, give the audience some credit. Their brains are capable of processing, say, a 20 year old playing another 20 year old's mother, or siblings of different races. I promise.
2. Experimentation. Sure, sometimes it goes horribly wrong, but it's still better than recycling the same tired shows over and over. Colleges can afford to experiment, because they're not beholden to certain demographics of season ticket holders like a lot of professional theaters can be. In fact, they can put on just about anything they like, and have an instant audience of students who are required to see the show because they're taking a theater course. Ha.
3. Budget. Okay, I know theater departments never have enough money. They're underfunded, etc. But they still have lots more money than a lot of community theaters and small theater companies. That means you get great sound and light boards to fiddle around with, and good costumes and sets. You also don't have to scramble for backstage crew, because that's yet another thing you can require of students taking a theater course! Ha. Ha.
4. Energy. There's nothing like excited, eager, not-yet-jaded college students to breathe some life into a show. I love working with college students because they love to work! In fact, they're often so happy to be cast in a show that they (gasp!) show up for rehearsal! And sometimes they even (gasp!) learn their lines well before dress rehearsal! And there are moments, from the audience, when you can feel this excitement, this pure joy of discovery, crackling like electricity through the air. It's hard to be a cynical old theater person when that happens.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Pride & Prejudice and loving my view from the audience
Well, it's Super Bowl Sunday, and you know what that means...a stage version of Jane Austen's Pride And Prejudice! The theater was packed, so I guess there is hope for humanity ;)
I enjoyed the show. At first it seemed rather fast-paced and rushed, because the way it was adapted for the stage called for very quick transitions between scenes. Night became day, weeks passed by in an instant while stagehands dressed as maids whisked chairs on and off without so much as a break to dim the lights. But I soon realized that this was probably necessary to fit all of the important plot points of the novel into the play. It still ran nearly three hours, as my Mom (who attended with me) and I were shocked to discover once it was over. Mom was sad that her favorite line "I cannot abide a mountain" was not included in the adaptation.
Overall, I think this was a wonderful achievement for Swine Palace over at LSU. The casting was so well done that I instantly knew which actor was playing the principal roles before any of them spoke.
I recognized several actors from the play David and I saw at Swine Palace last spring, The Metal Children. I was also very excited to recognize two actors from shows I'd seen in New Orleans, at Southern Rep and Tulane Shakespeare. One of these actors was playing Mr. Darcy, and I'd seen him in King Lear (as Edgar) and Macbeth (in the title role). I'm annoyed with myself for leaving my program behind in my mom's car, because now for the life of me I can't remember the man's name. He has blown me away in everything I've seen him do. I will even say that he gave Colin Firth a run for his money as Mr. Darcy, and I love me some Colin Firth. Anyone reading this who can identify this brilliant actor, please comment.
The only negative aspect of this show for me was the large physical reactions and expressions that the actors often displayed. I think one of the joys of Jane Austen's work is that the characters must restrain their emotions and behave in a manner appropriate for society, but their true feelings come through in their witty words. Their was some scoffing and shrugging and eye-rolling going on that I thought was not necessary, and took away from the power of Austen's dialogue. Since this was happening across the board, I think it must have been a directorial choice. Sadly, one of the major offenders here was the actress playing Lizzy Bennett. I could tell she was a talented actor, but I didn't get Lizzy's sharp yet subtle wit from her performance. Her Lizzy seemed less confident than I imagine the character to be. Again, she was clearly talented, but I was disappointed in the choices taken.
I was thinking today about how much theater I've seen in the past couple of years. My pregnancy, and now baby care, prevented me from participating as much as I'd done before, and as a result I'm more often an audience member. I was surprised to discover that I love it. When I was younger, I couldn't see a show without wishing I was in it (unless I hated it). My desire to be involved eclipsed my enjoyment as an observer. That is no longer the case. Now I find myself loving the chance to get lost in the story as only an audience member can.
This is not to say that I don't miss participating - I do. But in the meantime, I enjoy this phase of my life, where I can sit back and watch and soak it all in.
I enjoyed the show. At first it seemed rather fast-paced and rushed, because the way it was adapted for the stage called for very quick transitions between scenes. Night became day, weeks passed by in an instant while stagehands dressed as maids whisked chairs on and off without so much as a break to dim the lights. But I soon realized that this was probably necessary to fit all of the important plot points of the novel into the play. It still ran nearly three hours, as my Mom (who attended with me) and I were shocked to discover once it was over. Mom was sad that her favorite line "I cannot abide a mountain" was not included in the adaptation.
Overall, I think this was a wonderful achievement for Swine Palace over at LSU. The casting was so well done that I instantly knew which actor was playing the principal roles before any of them spoke.
I recognized several actors from the play David and I saw at Swine Palace last spring, The Metal Children. I was also very excited to recognize two actors from shows I'd seen in New Orleans, at Southern Rep and Tulane Shakespeare. One of these actors was playing Mr. Darcy, and I'd seen him in King Lear (as Edgar) and Macbeth (in the title role). I'm annoyed with myself for leaving my program behind in my mom's car, because now for the life of me I can't remember the man's name. He has blown me away in everything I've seen him do. I will even say that he gave Colin Firth a run for his money as Mr. Darcy, and I love me some Colin Firth. Anyone reading this who can identify this brilliant actor, please comment.
The only negative aspect of this show for me was the large physical reactions and expressions that the actors often displayed. I think one of the joys of Jane Austen's work is that the characters must restrain their emotions and behave in a manner appropriate for society, but their true feelings come through in their witty words. Their was some scoffing and shrugging and eye-rolling going on that I thought was not necessary, and took away from the power of Austen's dialogue. Since this was happening across the board, I think it must have been a directorial choice. Sadly, one of the major offenders here was the actress playing Lizzy Bennett. I could tell she was a talented actor, but I didn't get Lizzy's sharp yet subtle wit from her performance. Her Lizzy seemed less confident than I imagine the character to be. Again, she was clearly talented, but I was disappointed in the choices taken.
I was thinking today about how much theater I've seen in the past couple of years. My pregnancy, and now baby care, prevented me from participating as much as I'd done before, and as a result I'm more often an audience member. I was surprised to discover that I love it. When I was younger, I couldn't see a show without wishing I was in it (unless I hated it). My desire to be involved eclipsed my enjoyment as an observer. That is no longer the case. Now I find myself loving the chance to get lost in the story as only an audience member can.
This is not to say that I don't miss participating - I do. But in the meantime, I enjoy this phase of my life, where I can sit back and watch and soak it all in.
Friday, January 27, 2012
food food food
Well, I guess there is a first time for everything. Today at Whole Foods I had a rude cashier. Usually they're so nice! Weird.
Here are a couple of my current food obsessions.
I got some of this almond milk yogurt today, and tried the coconut flavor. IT WAS AWESOME. Looking forward to trying the other kinds.
I love peanut butter, and Earth Balance with flaxseed is the best peanut butter I've ever tried. It's natural, but doesn't have to be refrigerated. Seriously, it's the best.
Here are a couple of my current food obsessions.
I got some of this almond milk yogurt today, and tried the coconut flavor. IT WAS AWESOME. Looking forward to trying the other kinds.
I love peanut butter, and Earth Balance with flaxseed is the best peanut butter I've ever tried. It's natural, but doesn't have to be refrigerated. Seriously, it's the best.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Recipe: Savory chickpea stew
When I was a kid, my mom used to make stew with leftover chicken and gravy. This is my vegan version of it. I suppose you could use fake chicken strips if you want, but I use chickpeas because I tend to always have them in the pantry and I love them.
Savory Chickpea Stew
Ingredients:
1/2 cup olive oil
1 medium onion, chopped
3 cloves garlic, minced
1/2 cup whole wheat flour
2 Tbsp Nutritional Yeast
4 Tbsp Bragg's Liquid Aminos (or soy sauce)
6 cups veggie broth or water
2 carrots, chopped
2 stalks celery, chopped
2 potatoes, chopped into 1-inch cubes
3 cups cooked chickpeas (or 2 cans, drained and rinsed)
1 tsp sage
1 cup frozen peas, thawed
salt and pepper to taste
1. Heat the oil in a large pot over medium heat. Add the onion and garlic, and cook about 5 minutes.
2. Add the flour, nutritional yeast, and liquid aminos. It will form a thick paste.
3. Gradually add the broth, stirring to mix well.
4. Add the carrots, celery, potatoes, chickpeas and sage. Bring stew to a boil, then reduce heat and simmer until vegetables are cooked, about 30 minutes.
5. In the meantime, make some biscuits! Here's my favorite recipe: http://vegweb.com/index.php?topic=4745.0
6. Before serving, add the peas, salt and pepper. Serve with biscuits.
Savory Chickpea Stew
Ingredients:
1/2 cup olive oil
1 medium onion, chopped
3 cloves garlic, minced
1/2 cup whole wheat flour
2 Tbsp Nutritional Yeast
4 Tbsp Bragg's Liquid Aminos (or soy sauce)
6 cups veggie broth or water
2 carrots, chopped
2 stalks celery, chopped
2 potatoes, chopped into 1-inch cubes
3 cups cooked chickpeas (or 2 cans, drained and rinsed)
1 tsp sage
1 cup frozen peas, thawed
salt and pepper to taste
1. Heat the oil in a large pot over medium heat. Add the onion and garlic, and cook about 5 minutes.
2. Add the flour, nutritional yeast, and liquid aminos. It will form a thick paste.
3. Gradually add the broth, stirring to mix well.
4. Add the carrots, celery, potatoes, chickpeas and sage. Bring stew to a boil, then reduce heat and simmer until vegetables are cooked, about 30 minutes.
5. In the meantime, make some biscuits! Here's my favorite recipe: http://vegweb.com/index.php?topic=4745.0
6. Before serving, add the peas, salt and pepper. Serve with biscuits.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Yet another thing to scold pregnant women about
So, I read this article from the LA times via Balancing Jane (who has a good analysis of it), and I find it annoying on several levels.
Basically, the theory is that the obesity epidemic was caused by pregnant women in the 50s and 60s doing three unhealthy things: smoking, striving to gain as little weight as possible, and not breastfeeding.
First of all, though the article briefly mentions the growing popularity of fast food, suburban culture that leads to more driving, etc., it seems to come to the conclusion that these 50s and 60s moms are a larger cause of increased obesity. I have my doubts about that.
Further, the article clearly states that doctors were telling women to do these things. If that's the case, why don't we call a spade a spade here and blame doctors for the obesity epidemic? But no, we can't do that, of course. Because they're always right (well, except for all those times in the past when they were wrong, but they're right now! So listen to your doctor. Remember, they're smarter than you). It must have been those naughty pregnant women acting up again. Don't they care about the children?
Also, the expert behind the theory flat-out states that overweight women should not have children. I'd rather that jerks not have children, personally. Because, I don't think that being fat is so horrible that we should try to make sure fat people are never born. This is not to say that it's not important for individuals to try to be healthy - I'm a bit of a health nut, myself - but come on. I mean, let's look at this "unhealthy" generation that was born in the 50s and 60s - I know some excellent human beings that were born in those decades! Some of them are even *gasp* fat! And if they want to try to do something about that, that's up to them. But I'm glad they're on this planet, regardless.
There are many systemic causes for the health problems we're currently facing. I think our priorities need to shift to value health more. Blaming it all on mothers is both incorrect and unfair.
Basically, the theory is that the obesity epidemic was caused by pregnant women in the 50s and 60s doing three unhealthy things: smoking, striving to gain as little weight as possible, and not breastfeeding.
First of all, though the article briefly mentions the growing popularity of fast food, suburban culture that leads to more driving, etc., it seems to come to the conclusion that these 50s and 60s moms are a larger cause of increased obesity. I have my doubts about that.
Further, the article clearly states that doctors were telling women to do these things. If that's the case, why don't we call a spade a spade here and blame doctors for the obesity epidemic? But no, we can't do that, of course. Because they're always right (well, except for all those times in the past when they were wrong, but they're right now! So listen to your doctor. Remember, they're smarter than you). It must have been those naughty pregnant women acting up again. Don't they care about the children?
Also, the expert behind the theory flat-out states that overweight women should not have children. I'd rather that jerks not have children, personally. Because, I don't think that being fat is so horrible that we should try to make sure fat people are never born. This is not to say that it's not important for individuals to try to be healthy - I'm a bit of a health nut, myself - but come on. I mean, let's look at this "unhealthy" generation that was born in the 50s and 60s - I know some excellent human beings that were born in those decades! Some of them are even *gasp* fat! And if they want to try to do something about that, that's up to them. But I'm glad they're on this planet, regardless.
There are many systemic causes for the health problems we're currently facing. I think our priorities need to shift to value health more. Blaming it all on mothers is both incorrect and unfair.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Parenting and happiness (or lack thereof)
This is a very interesting article in NY Mag about whether kids make one happier or not, and I like this analysis of the article on the Golden Notebooks blog as well. As the article mentions, I sometimes worry that I'm not spending enough "quality time" with Anton. Because, these days, he spends a lot of time either in his ridiculously festooned "activity center" or his Jolly Jumper. He seems to enjoy them, but I feel guilty sometimes for not coming up with bonding/educational activities all day long. Yet, he seems content, stopping every few minutes to look up at me and grin.
Does he make me happier? That's a complicated question. I've heard people say that if you don't have kids, you'll never know how much you could love someone. I think that's true. My love for Anton is a different kind of love than I've ever experienced. But it's also scary sometimes, to love someone so tiny and vulnerable. It causes me a lot of worry.
I certainly have moments of joy with him - many of them, every day. I like taking walks with him, giving him baths, snuggling in the morning, etc. In this way, ours is one of the most rewarding relationships I've ever had. But I don't so much like trying to figure out why he's fussy, trying to get him to sleep, and having him cry while I'm attempting to cook dinner.
But then, isn't that always the way, with someone or something you love? I think about my relationship to theater. There were certainly times when I was so busy and stressed and disappointed in others' behavior, and disappointed in my own results that it seemed absurd that this was something I was choosing to do, for very little (or no) money. Yet, I adore theater. I miss it, when I'm not involved. I would never quit theater for good.
I think the article's focus on the importance of useful, productive activity is a good point. I disagree with the idea that children's lives should be all play and fun. I like the idea of working on something with Anton someday, like a theater project...teaching him "the trade" and all that. His father feels the same way about getting him interested in science, I think.
And, interestingly, having Anton gives me more moments of feeling accomplished, simply because doing anything while caring for a baby feels like an achievement. So when I manage to write a revised chapter for my novel, cook a fabulous dinner, complete a workout DVD, etc., I feel pretty damn good about myself. In less busy times of my life, I often wasted all day online or whatever and didn't get anything of substance done, and that made me depressed. Having too much free time can be dangerous. Knowing you only have an hour or so before the baby wakes from a nap can be an excellent motivator.
So, am I happier overall? I know I'm happy not to be pregnant anymore. I know I'm happy to be married. And, while I don't always feel that I "have it all" (who does?), I know that I can't even imagine my life without Anton, now that he's here.
Does he make me happier? That's a complicated question. I've heard people say that if you don't have kids, you'll never know how much you could love someone. I think that's true. My love for Anton is a different kind of love than I've ever experienced. But it's also scary sometimes, to love someone so tiny and vulnerable. It causes me a lot of worry.
I certainly have moments of joy with him - many of them, every day. I like taking walks with him, giving him baths, snuggling in the morning, etc. In this way, ours is one of the most rewarding relationships I've ever had. But I don't so much like trying to figure out why he's fussy, trying to get him to sleep, and having him cry while I'm attempting to cook dinner.
But then, isn't that always the way, with someone or something you love? I think about my relationship to theater. There were certainly times when I was so busy and stressed and disappointed in others' behavior, and disappointed in my own results that it seemed absurd that this was something I was choosing to do, for very little (or no) money. Yet, I adore theater. I miss it, when I'm not involved. I would never quit theater for good.
I think the article's focus on the importance of useful, productive activity is a good point. I disagree with the idea that children's lives should be all play and fun. I like the idea of working on something with Anton someday, like a theater project...teaching him "the trade" and all that. His father feels the same way about getting him interested in science, I think.
And, interestingly, having Anton gives me more moments of feeling accomplished, simply because doing anything while caring for a baby feels like an achievement. So when I manage to write a revised chapter for my novel, cook a fabulous dinner, complete a workout DVD, etc., I feel pretty damn good about myself. In less busy times of my life, I often wasted all day online or whatever and didn't get anything of substance done, and that made me depressed. Having too much free time can be dangerous. Knowing you only have an hour or so before the baby wakes from a nap can be an excellent motivator.
So, am I happier overall? I know I'm happy not to be pregnant anymore. I know I'm happy to be married. And, while I don't always feel that I "have it all" (who does?), I know that I can't even imagine my life without Anton, now that he's here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)