Who I Am v. Who I Wish To Be

“Before I can tell my life what I want to do with it, I must listen to my life telling me who I am.” 

-Parker J. Palmer, Let Your Life Speak

I read (most of) an intriguing little book by Parker J. Palmer called Let Your Life Speak. It's a book about calling, vocation and listening as a means to discovering calling and vocation. 

Part of letting your life speak is separating who you are from who wish you were.

To give an example: I wish I were more of a technical/visual filmmaker than I am. I wish I could get excited and nerd out about new technology. I wish I cared about the visual style of David Fincher or John Ford. I wish I intuitively understood the difference between different video codecs.

Zadie Smith wrote a great essay about ideal readers and the authors they do not choose (rather, the writing of that author chooses you). She writes of E.M. Forster:

It happens that I am E.M. Forster's ideal reader, but I would much prefer to be Gustave Flaubert's or William Gaddis's or Franz Kafka's or Borges's. [...] Rightly or wrongly, I feel I get all his jokes and appreciate his nuances, that I am as hurt by his flaws as I am by my own, and as pleased when he is great as I would be if I did something great. I know Morgan. I know what he is going to say before he says it, as if we had been married thirty years. But at the same time, I am never bored by him. You might know three or four writers like this in your life, and likely as not, you will meet them when you are very young. Understand: They are not the writers you most respect, most envy, or even most enjoy. They are the ones you know. (from The Best American Nonrequired Reading 2003) 

I love this idea of writers and readers meant for each other like soul mates. Again, it's not about who you wish you were drawn to but about who you actually get, I mean really get. I can remember having feelings like this whilst reading Jane Eyre, though I'm not sure who I am the ideal reader for. I suppose I wish I were the ideal reader for Henry James.

I admire writers who can write for miles, days, pages and pages, but I am not that kind of writer. I struggle to reach page and word counts. When I write, I often skip over a bunch of explication and get straight to the point (or at least that's what one professor said). Am I leaving things out because I assume they are obvious? Am I just too lazy to properly set things up? Is this just the way that I write?

In a similar vein, to go back to filmmaking, I wish I had the compassion of a director like Cameron Crowe or Brad Silberling. I wish I cared about my characters the way that they do. I wish I had that kind of empathy, which is to imply that I don't.

All of this is to say a lot about who I am not--not technical, not obsessed with visuals, not given to torrents of words, not empathetic. I know less about what I am. I think that's where the listening comes in. Or the just doing. Relaxing into vocation.

If I'm hearing correctly, I think my life might be saying that I don't write/create within a social vacuum. Filmmaking is always collaborative and I enjoy that aspect of it. I create with my friends and the quality of the work reflects the quality of my relationships. I used to see that as a liability, because if the relationship fell apart, so would the project. But maybe it's more of a gift than a liability.

What about you? Is there a gap between who you are and who you wish you could be? 

New Year's Resolutions: The Who, What, Where, and When

1. Read more.

One Hundred Years of Solitude
The Wings of the Dove
Tropic of Cancer
The Grass is Singing
Anna Karenina
Art and Madness
Bleak House
The Rings of Saturn
Possession
TBA

In coming up with a reading list, I realized that I want to read "the classics" less than I thought I did. Maybe this is because there are relatively few "classics" (intellectual snobbery alert)  that I have neither read nor attempted to read. I have an especial distaste for books that I have--more than once--tried and failed to finish. (I'm looking at you, Slaughterhouse-Five and Huckleberry Finn.)

I find myself drawn more to memoirs, essay collections and literary theory.

The thing about a childhood spent reading is that it's extremely difficult to live up to as an adult, at least for me. I despair of being able to replicate the wonder and delight of reading certain books at a certain age. More than I want to read more great books, I want to re-experience reading the great books of my past. Am I doomed to an adulthood of literary nostalgia?

Of course, there is always re-reading. But there's something risky about re-reading a book you once adored. It might not stand up the second time around, which is why I've probably never reread a certain book I read at age eleven. I want to preserve the sacred memory of that first reading.

2. Write more.

Specifically, I'd like to be published in 10 places other than this blog--this can include web or print. One down, nine to go. (update 1/25: At least one of these must be in print)

3. Think less.

This is a difficult one. How does this even work? I suppose the only way to plan on thinking less is to plan on doing instead of thinking. So far, I've tried to put this into practice with mixed results.

A few days ago, I read:

"Try an experiment today: What would happen if you did NOT conceptualize everything before taking action?" (Understanding the Enneagram, 93)

What does that even mean? Do people really do that? 

I'm kind of kidding. 

I have recognized a tendency to read about doing things (like writing a screenplay) rather than actually doing them. That madness has got to stop. 

4. Participate. 

Anyone up for some beer pong?

5. Shoot more. 

One short film per month.

Pretty is not dead--it's just taking an intergalactic nap

Someone, somewhere (Pat Archbold) wrote an essay on "The Death of Pretty." In it, he opposes the two values of "pretty" and "hot," lamenting the death of the former and the cultural ascension of the latter. Girls today, he alleges, want to be hot, not pretty.

The Problem with Pretty

Archbold defines "pretty" or "the pretty" as "a mutually enriching balanced combination of beauty and projected innocence."

Given this definition, I think I understand the putative girl's problem with pretty, especially if you replace "pretty" with "cute." "Cute" is so innocuous. Hot turns heads; Cute gets a pat on the head. Teenage girls naturally don't want to be cute, implying as it does a patronizing "Aw, you're so cute!" when what they want to hear is "you are an attractive, grown-up woman."

And this incidentally, is my primary problem with the author's definition of "pretty." It's infuriatingly infantilizing. The writer conflates "girls" with "women," although from what I can tell, his message is only aimed at women young enough to be considered conventionally "hot" (he cites Taylor Swift, Megan Fox, Lindsay Lohan and Miley Cyrus, none of whom is over the age of 25).  Does a woman ever outgrow pretty? Must a woman of 50+ be primarily concerned with projecting innocence? I hope not. Innocence is not something I aspire to project now, let alone after I qualify for the senior discount at Denny's.

In fact, only young women (and possibly teenagers?) seem to be implored to embrace the pretty. If only they would stop being so enticing! The more I think about it, the more conflating perceived innocence with youth and physical beauty just seems weird and creepily objectifying. So you're saying that my perceived level of sexual experience dictates whether or not I'm "pretty"? Ew.

Pretty and hot are simply opposite sides of the same coin--a woman's attractiveness being contingent upon perceived sexual experience or knowledge.

(see also http://bit.ly/snb0mJ)

If I'm wearing a push-up bra, will you let me get mauled by bears? 

Predictably, I find the tone of this essay particularly patronizing. Pretty is pleasing. Pretty is unthreatening. Pretty is passive. Pretty begs to be protected and rescued, or as Archbold puts it,

"By nature, generally when men see this combination [of beauty and innocence] in women it brings out their better qualities, their best in fact.  [...] the pretty inspires men to protect and defend it."

In other words, pretty never kicks ass. Rather, it inspires men to kick ass. 

And what are these women/girls innocent of, exactly? Grand theft auto? Confusing "your" with "you're"? No, Archbold is referring to sexual innocence or the appearance thereof. [Interestingly, pretty is about projected--not real--innocence. Probably because this is the only kind of "innocence" we can pretend to objectively judge--based on how a woman dresses, of course.]

Now, I could be wrong here, but I doubt that the writer is advocating the kind of chivalry that protects and defends a woman in need of protecting or defending only if the clothes she happens to be wearing at the time are sufficiently modest. (Oh, and to qualify as "pretty," she must be beautiful too.)

If I'm in the process of getting mugged, I hope the passerby's first thought is not "Gee, I hope this girl appears both sexually innocent and beautiful, so I can feel compelled to save her--oh wait, she's wearing stripper heels." 

Or worse: "Well, she is dressed like a commodity (read: whore) and we all know that consumables are meant to be 'used up and thrown away.' I just don't feel like stepping in." 

Nonsense. True chivalry defends the defenseless regardless of either their perceived sexual history or their level of attractiveness. 

Which is all to say, the writer confuses the state of a man's heart with the state of a woman's dress. Pretty, "that special combination of beauty and innocence," can inspire more than just the noblest qualities in a man's heart. It can inspire lust, fear, hatred. It really depends on what is in his heart in the first place. 

Speaking from personal experience, wearing revealing or tight clothes is not a prerequisite for being harassed, groped or otherwise treated like a commodity in public. Ask any woman--you don't need to put on your "hot" clothes in order to be objectified. Sometimes all it takes is walking out the front door in jeans and a T-shirt. 

Furthermore, innocence can be an attractive quality to a predator--the less she knows, the less experience she has, the easier it will be to take advantage of her. 

All the pretty in the world will not turn a predator into a protector. 

Pretty, Pretty Pedestal

Pretty girls, it would seem, have the magical ability to bring out the very best in men as long as they remain safely perched upon the pedestal of passive prettiness. I submit that they would be happier descending from said pedestal and excelling at academics, sports, a career, relationships, life. Men are ultimately responsible for their own hearts, their own actions. That's not a burden girls should feel compelled to bear.

No woman--hot, pretty, cute or any other looks-related value--should be treated like a commodity (read: prostitute). Not because of how she looks or dresses, but because it's wrong to treat a person as if she were a thing.

I still remember a speaker in chapel (Phil's dad) quoting from the movie version of Les Miserables. His voice broke as he recalled Jean Valjean's words to Fantine, the prostitute: "In God's eyes, you have never been anything but an innocent and beautiful woman."

The blog that got me a date and the followup post

[These blog posts are from 2009 and may or may not reflect my current views.]

Blog 1 

Readers of this blog may know that passive guys drive me crazy--and not in a good way.

To be completely straight, dear reader, I have been burned. And I am not, nor will I ever be, a neutral commentator on the passive male phenomenon. In fact, I probably have nothing new to say. 

"Blah, blah, blah, passive guys suck." 

Nonetheless, here are a few thoughts: 

1. Everytime I/somegirl criticizes passive men, I/they feel compelled to add something along the lines of, "But we really shouldn't be too hard on the poor emotionally stunted wimps, because then they will simply retreat even further into the narcissistic void of lapsed masculinity." 

2. Criticizing passive men is a remarkable waste of time. 

3. Men are passive (eg "hanging out" instead of "asking out") because it benefits them. This isn't rocket science, but at its heart, the whole "asking out" system of male pursuit benefits women, not men. 

Women get to feel wanted. Men get to be (potentially) rejected. 

"Just hanging out" benefits men (or should I say "boys"?). All of the benefits of female companionship without a) Having to pay for anything, and b) The possibility of rejection. 

The girl eventually gets hurt by his (passive) rejection, and he moves on to hang out with someone else. What's not to like? 

4. Until we have a dating culture that stops rewarding passivity, nothing will change. 

5. I have figured out that if a guy isn't willing to risk rejection with me, then he isn't worth it. 

Blog 2

(This is part of an email to a (guy) friend who read my previous blog)

I agree, it's a complex issue. Often for girls the guys they don't want to ask them out do, and the ones they do don't. So when a girl complains about a passive guy, the issue could really be that she likes him, but he doesn't like her. 

Also, would you rather a girl "give you a chance" or tell you upfront that you don't have a chance (if that's the case)? Just as guys have trouble getting rejected, girls have trouble doing the rejecting while trying not to hurt the guy's feelings. 

Also, some girls have no problem whatsoever with more passive guys. These are usually girls who know what they want and are more than willing to control/direct nearly every aspect of the relationship. I'm just not that kind of person. It sounds exhausting. 

Also, although it seems like it's the guy doing all the work, usually the girl non-verbally "asks" the guy to ask her out before he does so. You know, body language and such. 

(I've done this with several passive guys, and though it took them long enough, they did ask me out. It's really a seize-the-moment kind of thing. Wait too long and duck season may be over.)

Also, creepy guys can be a lot of things, but they are rarely passive. 

Also, it's not just asking her out, it's how you act on the date. I had one guy ask me out to the movies. He kind of made a big deal about it. On the evening of the actual date, he acted like he would rather be doing LSAT logic problems. 

He acted like he didn't care. And despite the fact that I know he did care--probably a lot--I couldn't reconcile myself to being with a guy who would rather appear nonchalant than wait for me before walking out of a building. 

Even now, when I picture him, I see his back. 

He's walking away. 

New Year's Resolutions

1. Read more.

In 2011, I rediscovered the audiobook, which is all well and good. However, I'd like to actually read a few books this year, eye to page, balls to leaf, etc.

2. Write more.

Maybe I should specify: write more for public consumption. I write a fair bit--I can't imagine NOT writing. It's part of who I am. A delightful cocktail of perfectionism and procrastination keeps me from writing for persons other than myself--I'm always looking for the perfect title, idea, opportunity.

So yeah. I'd like to write a feature length screenplay, and you can hold me to that. And more blogs.

3. Think less.

In the same category as thinking: talking about it, reading about it, writing about it. Write more, think less--sounds paradoxical, but there is certainly an element of writing that does not come from thinking but from putting pen to page. In other words, just do it. Less theory, more praxis.

4. Participate.

Sometimes, this means playing beer pong.

5. Shoot more.

Ideally, at least one project per month. Starting tomorrow.

How to hit on a girl on facebook

Fake dick pics. Every girl's dream.

First of all--welcome. Second of all, read this first.

Here's how NOT to hit on a girl on fb: 

1. Asking her how her day is going.

Hey :) How are you?
Good, how are you?
You know, just chillin. :) :) :) :)

2. Talking to her on fb chat about sex, sexting, or your penis.

3. Asking her to check out your shirtless pics and rate them on a scale of 1-10.

4. Asking her if she's a lesbian. (Yeah...that's why she's not interested. Right.)

I realize that in the last post I mostly just ranted about what I don't like--namely, being hit on on facebook, mostly by guys I've just met and barely know.

That being said, I thought maybe I'd add some how-to tips for those dire occasions when hitting on a girl via facebook is the only available option.

First a caveat: hitting on someone via fb is neither the most direct, nor the most efficacious way to go. Calling or asking in person is preferred.

That said, here are some things to keep in mind: 

1. If you don't want to be her friend, don't add her as a friend.

Instead, message her, text her or call her and ask her out (see #5). This way, you won't have to hit that "defriend" button when she responds unfavorably to your online advances. 

2. Be direct. 

Instead of asking her how her day is going, ask her if she wants to get coffee sometime or otherwise meet in person. State your intentions in so many words. 

3. Be clear. 

My friend's blog has a great take on this (and there are pictures!). If you want to see her, have a time, place and activity in mind.

4. Get to the point. 

This may be a repetition of the second item, but even so. It's better to arrive at the point immediately than to drag on a conversation about the weather in the hopes of slowly winning her over with your wit, charm and tasteful use of emoticons. It may be easier to keep up witty banter online, but these interactions are not necessarily an accurate reflection of in-person chemistry. You don’t have to tell her how much you like her or compliment her on her awesome bathroom-mirror-photography skills. Get to the point. 

5. Ask her out.

By which I mean, arrange to actually see her in-person. In this day and age, there's a good chance your paths may never again cross. Ask her out. I mean, why not? It’s intentional, upfront and unequivocal. Maybe you only met in person once and you don’t know her that well yet. Dating is a way to get to know someone better. Sure, it's intimidating, but heck, it’s just coffee/tea (it’s also not just coffee/tea, but it doesn’t have to turn into anything more if you don’t want it to. It’s up to you). Your next date may be only a fb message away. 

If you don't ask her out, guess what usually happens. Nothing, that's what. 

6. Be prepared to hear “No.”

…and respond graciously by withdrawing your suit. No harm, no foul. Plus, it’s over fb, so it’s no big deal. A facebook “no” is worth about 1/5 of an in-person “no” in humiliation value. 

I think this item might be the crux of why guys don't ask girls out--on fb or otherwise. Yeah, rejection sucks. Stereotypically speaking, guys bear the brunt of both the asking and the being rejected. However, I'm not sure that the more subtle rejection girls experience is any less ego-crushing than hearing "no." 

7. The "like" button and other soft forms of facebook flirting

I have not covered here soft methods of flirtation such as commenting on her fb status or posting random funny pictures on her wall. I don’t really see the harm in this, but again, it’s awfully indirect. 

I would advise against ever typing things like "HAWT" or "NICE RACK ;)". First of all, if a girl is posting multiple down-the-shirt pictures to her profile, she already knows she's hot. Second of all, do you really want to be part of a hot girl's online harem? This is starting to feel like a blog post for a different time...

And that's it! That's all I've got (again). Go forth and hit on that special someone this holiday season. 

I lose respect for you when you hit on me on facebook

Hey there. Yeah, you, hot stuff. I have a confession to make:

I lose respect for you when you hit on me via social media.

But really, is that even fair? I mean, in today's world, how often do you even meet people outside of your work and primary circle of friends? How often do you get the chance to chat up that cute girl you met at the Christmas luau?

But oh look, one of you just added the other as a fb friend.

Let the coquetting begin.

So yeah, maybe I'm not being fair or realistic. Tough. This is my blog. So with that, here's a few of my non-favorite facebook flirting things:

1. There's no risk. 

People do and say things online that they would never do or say in person. Why? It's less risky. Less risk = Less respect. It's that simple. I know it's old-fashioned, but as a girl, I want to believe that I'm worth more than a "hey there" on fb chat. Maybe it's like a test, the "will you do more than hit on me online?" or "will you risk rejection?" test. Not a fair test. But still.

2. There's no reality. 

The virtuality of facebook makes it easy to pretend, easy to posture, and easy to poke that cute guy you've been pining after. There's a lack of reality to online interactions; an invisible curtain between virtual life and real life.

I'm not saying that actions and reactions online don't resonate and reverberate in real life. Trust me, they do, sometimes for the worse. The "facebook feedback loop" can manifest in welcome and unwelcome ways. But for me there's always that shock--that jolt of recognition--when the virtual and the real collide.

3. Would you please get to the point already? 

There's often a lack of clear direction to online hitting-on. The worst has to be fb chat. Please don't hit on me via fb chat. In my opinion, fb chat is the LAMEST way to hit on someone you barely know EVER. If fb chat is the only place you have game, just don't.

The vague asking-me-about-my-day but never asking-me-out thing annoys me. For a guy, chatting with a girl via fb chat can be a way to fish for her interest in him without taking even the remotest risk. Lame.

4. There's no clarity. 

I've had guys ask me out on fb only to...not ask me out. What? There are just so many questions. Like, why is this guy talking to me? Is he hitting on me? Expressing mild interest? Passing the time at work? Just chatting? Wait, why is he asking me if I'm single? It's too much. These guys usually end up deleting me anyway after I make my lack of interest (un)clear. Thanks...Friend.

5. There is a double standard.

This is horribly sexist of me, but I don't think these things apply to the opposite scenario of a girl hitting on a guy via fb. That's totally cool. Unless guys hate it. Please weigh in, gentlemen.

[Caveats and disclaimers: To all the guys who've asked me out via fb, kudos and respect to you. Also, none of this applies if you're actually in a relationship with someone. Please, if you are, poke away.]

That's it. That's all I've got. So before you get your mack on on your Mac or your pickup game on on your PC (say what?), consider: are you hedging your bets by not taking a risk or being indirect in your attentions? Do you want her to be more than just your fb friend? Tread with care.

Think before you flirt.