Many moons ago, I posted my favorite single line of song lyric and asked people to share theirs. Now we move from the micro to the macro! My question: what is your favorite song lyric?

To clarify: I’m not asking for your favorite song necessarily but what song you think has the best lyrics considered as a whole — as opposed to a line or two from the song. For example, the music might be total ass but all the words taken together could be awesome.

I choo, choose Suzanne by Leonard Cohen

Suzanne takes you down to her place near the river
You can hear the boats go by
You can spend the night beside her
And you know that she’s half crazy
But that’s why you want to be there
And she feeds you tea and oranges
That come all the way from China
And just when you mean to tell her
That you have no love to give her
Then she gets you on her wavelength
And she lets the river answer
That you’ve always been her lover

And you want to travel with her
And you want to travel blind
And you know that she will trust you
For you’ve touched her perfect body with your mind.

And Jesus was a sailor
When he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching
From his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain
Only drowning men could see him
He said “All men will be sailors then
Until the sea shall free them”
But he himself was broken
Long before the sky would open
Forsaken, almost human
He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone

And you want to travel with him
And you want to travel blind
And you think maybe you’ll trust him
For he’s touched your perfect body with his mind.

Now Suzanne takes your hand
And she leads you to the river
She is wearing rags and feathers
From Salvation Army counters
And the sun pours down like honey
On our lady of the harbour
And she shows you where to look
Among the garbage and the flowers
There are heroes in the seaweed
There are children in the morning
They are leaning out for love
And they will lean that way forever
While Suzanne holds the mirror

And you want to travel with her
And you want to travel blind
And you know that you can trust her
For she’s touched your perfect body with her mind.

Why do I admire these lyrics? I love when art is both personal and universal, subverts and re-articulates our expectations and conventions, and uses structure to convey or support meaning. All of this happens in these lyrics.

At the beginning, this song seems to be a poignant but quirky love song. By the end, it subverts that expectation and, at the same time, the cultural trope that man equals mind and woman equals body.

It does this with a beautiful revisioning of the Jesus narrative: arguably, the most important account of the union of body and spirit in Western culture.

Structurally, the Jesus stanza operates in this song the same way Jesus himself is meant to operate in human history: as the bridge between body and spirit and as the vehicle to a new covenant with God.

Furthermore, the comparison with Jesus transforms Suzanne from a crazy-woman-novelty-fuck into a quasi-prophet-soulmate. This in itself is a commentary on how men and women come to love each other.

Ack. If I start parsing individual lines,  I could go on and on. So I will stop here.

Please, what is your favorite complete set of lyrics and why? Please post the lyrics in question as well

For more posts like this, click here.

Last week, I wrote a play! Here it is! When you have a chance please give it a read and let me know what you think. I’m pretty pleased with it, so I hope you enjoy it.

Home In Time: A Play In One Act.PDF

All thoughts, comments, etc. are very welcome.

For more of my plays, click here.

I suspect most of my regular readers also follow me on Twitter or Facebook, so you probably know what I am about to tell you (I’m even on MySpace, but who the hell uses that anymore).

If you don’t know what I’m about to pitch, and this is the first time you hear it, please let me know in the comments section below. I’d be very interested in knowing if I have regular readers who aren’t linked into my other social media platforms. Hey, if nothing else, it’s a good excuse to introduce yourself. So please do.

And that concludes my preamble.

As most of you probably know, I am trying to drum up support for a joint Great Canadian Theatre Company and Ottawa Theatre Network funding proposal that has been submitted to the Aviva Community Fund.

If the proposal manages to make it through the various hoops it will mean, among other things, valuable seed money for the Ottawa Theatre Network — an organization that I am helping to boot-strap into existence and that many people in the community think is needed to help boot-strap Ottawa professional theatre to the next level.

If you want to help me help the Ottawa Theatre Network and Ottawa professional theatre, it is very easy to do. Go to the Aviva proposal, register to vote (in seconds), and then vote. Return the next day, repeat. And so on. Also please tell friends to do the same. It’s easy peasy. NB: it doesn’t matter where in the world you are. Just vote.

Now, what might not be immediately obvious is why I am supporting this campaign. Some very reasonable folks have expressed some very reasonable concerns about the whole idea of pitting worthy groups-in-need against each other in a de facto popularity contest. So, if I think those concerns are reasonable, why am I pushing the campaign?

I’d say, there are two reasons.

First, this campaign is an incredibly easy way to engage people and create an opportunity for people to get caught up in the story of the Ottawa Theatre Network. It’s a publicity home-run.

People want to help. People want to participate. People will help and participate, if the entry costs are low and the project understandable. Voting, finding voters, and spreading the word is a game we can all easily understand and enjoy. Even the idea of the game is easy to transmit: help, vote now, please! Moreover, because it happens on-line, it is fairly effortless for everyone.

Once that almost effortless effort is made, people will be that much more involved — however tiny –with the Ottawa Theatre Network’s story. If we make it to the next round or win, it will be a publicity grand slam and those people who helped — even if with only one vote — will take pride and ownership in the organization.

Even if we don’t make it to the next round, as a bare minimum, the Ottawa Theatre Network will have been on the lips and minds of key stakeholders for several days — even weeks — and they will feel more involved in our story. They will be involved as participants, rather than mere observers. Even the critics are getting caught up in the story.

Second, it is a great way for me to figure out what kind of buy-in we can generate for the Ottawa Theatre Network via a social media, grassroots, word-of-mouth campaign. On Day 1, we had zero votes, three days later, we have x number votes. I can even track who and how people are talking about it. It’s a very useful and easy arts marketing experiment.

Along the same lines, it also provides the opportunity for social media experiments like the one you are currently living simply by reading this post — a bunch of us are blogging about this proposal today (Friday) in one shape or form. It may be enough to cause a critical groundswell. Or maybe not. At least, we will know one way or the other.

So, yes, there are legitimate concerns and the Aviva funding scheme is by no means perfect. There are, however, good reasons to jump in, participate, and see what we can make of it. I am fairly confident we can turn this funding zombie into a funding blow-job. If nothing else, it’s an opportunity to practice looking for reasons for action instead of looking for reasons not to act. And that is always a good thing.

For more posts like this, click here.

In the 200,000 years since Homo sapiens first appeared on the planet, our ability to use and create resources has improved dramatically and our population has exploded.

When I reflect on the tremendous technological, demographical, and social changes of the past ten, fifty, and hundred years, it seems to me the most significant change concerns how we associate with each other.

Thanks to our increased economic, political, and communicative powers, many of us seem much more willing to create relationships and groups based on personal attachments and shared purposes that are unrelated to brute proximity and / or blood relations.

We also seem more inclined to accept that persons can — and maybe even should — belong to more than one group.

I say “seem” because I suspect some humans always have been willing to associate in this fashion and, because some of us can in fact associate in this fashion now, I suspect we always have been able to do it.

After all, from an evolutionary perspective, we are the very same primates we always have been. The tools we use are different, there are many more of us but, biologically speaking, we are very much the same.

I also suspect we didn’t associate in this fashion only because of a scarcity of resources and a superabundance of coercion. Without today’s technology and freedoms, it was simply impossible for the necessary connections to be made.

The lesson I draw from this line of thinking is that some of us are on the frontier of a new kind of living that was, until now, impossible. I also suspect, because I have faith in the species, it is a kind of living that will one day be taken for granted.

Therefore, in this ephemeral moment of unrealized possibility, I think we should nurture, cherish, and celebrate these new opportunities, relationships, and groups. I am even tempted to say, we should create these relationship and groups as a matter of duty because so many persons previous to us who had no choice but to go alone into the wilderness.

I won’t make this strong claim, however, because I am sure all those brave persons who ventured into the unknown wilderness alone — whether it be real or allegorical — did so because they longed for a world where a person could choose to live and associate how she pleases — even when it means being alone in the wilderness.

For more posts like this, click here.

Richard Rorty, a contemporary and recently deceased philosopher I admire, once quipped that philosophical debates are won by whomever is best able to come up with clever distinctions. The essence of his point is that philosophical debates are won and lost in the battle over the definitions employed to define the debate. Whomever sets, controls, and defines the terms of debate will win the debate. To see this observation in action, one need look no further than politics.

Along similar lines, he also suggests that people generally discuss and debate issues within certain taken-for-granted assumptions. Ultimately, he suggests, it is these fundamental assumptions that determine a person’s point of view in any particular discussion or debate.

I’ve realized, in the course of our discussions on this blog, I have some very specific assumptions that pretty much inform all my claims about human social behavior (like, sex, love, and friendship). I’d like to hear what you think about these assumptions.

They are:

1. A resource is anything a person values.
2. Any person can identify, create, and control resources (although, due to coercion, some do not, practically-speaking).
3. We organize ourselves into distinct social groups which collectively identify, create, and control resources.
4. We identify, create, and exchange resources with others in our group (cooperatively and / or competitively).
5. We identify, create, and exchange our resources with the members of other groups (cooperatively or competitively).
6. In principle, the total set of all resources is not finite, even if some particular resources are finite.
7. At roots, all our disputes concern the control and exchange of resources.

First impressions? Thoughts? Do you agree / disagree? Am I overlooking something?

For more posts like this, click here.

In the early 80s, Cirque de Soleil co-foudner Guy Laliberté was a fire-breathing street performer. Today, he is worth $2.5 billion and is Canada’s first space tourist. Not bad for a guy who used a stint on Employment Insurance to organize a summer fair in Baie-Saint-Paulre, Quebec.

So, here’s my twenty-five year plan. Maybe you can help me out and be a part of it.

1. Amass enough wealth and / or influence to create a basic income scheme for as many people as possible.
2. Create an arts-driven enterprise that is international in scope and locally focussed.
3. Create a theatre company that develops, produces, and promotes local talent and stories and engages and involves other local arts and artists.
4. Get a part-time job or contract work that covers my basic needs, write a business plan, find investors.
5. Post this plan, seek feedback, and solicit support.

What do you think? Would you like to help? I’m going need it.

In the short term, the easiest way to help is to let me know if you like the idea of the plan in the comments section below.

Additionally, you could also subscribe to my blog and check back every once and awhile. This is where I will be telling the story of my efforts to make this plan a reality. It should make for some interesting reading and the input of my readers will always be very welcome.

As mentioned I need a part-time job or contract work. If you know of any opportunities in the Ottawa area, please let me know.

Ideally, I’d like to make two thousand a month working part-time in the arts or an arts-related industry doing marketing, communications, or publicity. Alternatively, I could work full-time for a fixed period of time and make enough money to last the rest of the year.

Sometime in the near future, as my plans develop, I will be looking for investors. Stay tuned to learn more.

The sky, the clouds, and the sea will always be there whatever we may achieve and anything — anything — is possible.

For more posts like this, click here.

I’ve seen it time and again and it has happened to me. A platonic female friend sneers, “that’s who you find attractive, that’s what you find attractive in a girl / woman.” It took me a long time to realize that the sneer should be translated as, “she is not like me.”

It took me a long time to figure this out, I think, because I have always taken for granted i) that I can have platonic female friends, ii) that friendship and pair-bonding are two very different relationships, iii) and that the kind of person I value for each kind of relationship can be very different.

So, it makes perfect sense to me that I may admire and / or desire two completely different sets of characteristic in a woman, depending on whether or not she is my friend or a romantic partner. Moreover, on my view, the characteristics I admire in a mate are not necessarily the characteristics I most value in all women and they are certainly not the characteristics I think all women should always exhibit.

And still, there is that sneer, which seems to say, “she’s not like me.”

The only way I can make sense of this sneer is to suppose that she who sneers in this fashion believes that when a man desires a woman as a mate he makes a claim about how all women should be and what characteristics he most values in all women. If this supposition is correct, it baffles me.

So, I’ve got two questions.

1) Is this a gender issue or do guys also think that when a woman desires a man as as mate she is making a claim about how all men should be and what characteristics all men should exhibit?

2) Do you consider the set of characteristics you associate with your mate to be the set of characteristics you most value for his or her gender in all circumstances? Is your mate the standard by which all others in his or her gender are to be judged? Should our mates act as this standard?

For more post like this, click here.

Back in March 2009, I decided to figure out what’s happening in the Ottawa theatre scene and to determine if there is an opportunity for me to make a meaningful contribution to its success and growth. I think such an opportunity exists.

In Ottawa, there are plenty of talented and dedicated people already working in and around theatre. There is also a committed audience and plenty of potential audience, including younger cohorts.

Crucially, there is also a burgeoning new media scene keen on covering theatre (and the arts generally: check out my blogroll at the bottom of this page). There are even indications that the old guard media will pay attention, if there is real story to cover (for example, click here or click here).

Moreover, the other arts also appear to be flourishing, are also looking to engage with the wider arts community, and there is a palatable sense of excitement and opportunity everywhere. Ottawa’s renaissance is upon us.

So what, if anything, does Ottawa theatre need and how can I contribute to Ottawa’s renaissance?

On my view, Ottawa theatre needs:

1) A business model, a business plan, and money.

2) A company that regularly develops, produces, and promotes a variety of local talent and stories.

3) A company that engages and involves other local art and artists.

My hunch is that a money-making business model can be built around a company that does both 2 and 3. Over the next little while, I will be investigating this hunch and I will keep you posted about what I discover.

Do you have any thoughts about theatre and / or the arts in Ottawa? If you are a reader from another city, do you have any thoughts, ideas, or stories which may be of use to me?

All thoughts warmly received and always appreciated.

For more posts like this, click here.

I am always perplexed by the fact that the question of what a woman should or should not wear remains a hotly contested battle ground, especially among women. I’ve been struggling to find a way to articulate this confusion and then the quick-witted Adorkeable Thespian tweeted me this very funny Sarah Haskins clip:

I enjoyed this clip a lot (in fact, all of her clips are awesome) and its summary punch line is insightful and provides me the lens through which I can expression my confusion.

At the last instance, Haskins notes: these commercial contain images of women driven to unbridled sexual availability by things that (nerdy) guys like. And this makes sense. These advertisers are marketing primarily to a specific demographic of men, so it is no surprise that female beauty would be characterized in a fashion that accords with the desires of these men.

Now this got me thinking.

The terminology employed by this video, and which accords with our day-to-day language use, implies that the expression “hot chicks” refers to women who look, dress, and act in a fashion which accords with the desires of some men.

Over against this category of women — and this is a point well-made by the PFP — there is an aesthetic of female beauty that is primarily for the benefit of some group of other women. Women often use the word “cute” to describe fashion which corresponds with this aesthetic, so I am going to identify these women as “cute girls” but I’m open to changing this term, if anyone has any ideas (Gossip girls?). I had considered, “fashionistas” but that seemed too narrow a sub-group.

At any rate, it occurred to me: both these aesthetics are created and perpetuated for the benefit of some specific group of people and are created by both men and women (e.g. male fashion designers have as a large role to play in the “cute girl” aesthetic as women do in the “hot chick” aesthetic  – possibly more).

It also occurred to me: people buy into one aesthetic or the other for the very same reasons. Some people adopt one aesthetic because it is, for them, empowering and some people adopt the same aesthetic because they want or need the approval of the people who embrace it without necessarily wanting to exercise control over them. In either case, each aesthetic is driven and perpetuated by a desire for power and / or membership in a specific group.

So, from this perspective, the on-going debate over women’s fashion, manufactured beauty ideals, and what is or is not appropriate fashion choices, is a debate between different groups of people who advance totalizing claims about the way all men and women should be. You should look, dress, desire, and consume like us because it is more empowering and less harmful than that other group’s manner of looking, dressing, desiring and consuming, according to our assessment of what counts as empowering and harmful.

Now, this conclusion is useful for me because it makes sense of why some people argue the “hot chick” aesthetic can be a source of empowerment and why some people argue the “cute girl” aesthetic is also caught up in oppressive social practices. In either case, some women are empowered, some women are disempowered, and both men and women play a role in the construction of both (really, many) aesthetics. The net result: wearing a mini-skirt and high heels is a source of empowerment or oppression, depending on who you talk to and the group with which they identify.

So why do I find this perplexing?

Isn’t the goal of all emancipatory social movements — including feminism — to ensure persons can exercise their own judgment as they see fit (given the constraints necessary for well-ordered society) without fear of illegitimate reprisal from any other person or group? Isn’t the point of feminism to empower each woman to make her own judgements and lifestyles choices as she sees fit? If this is true, is it useful for women (and men) to criticize women publicly and privately about their clothing and lifestyle choices? Shouldn’t we all support women in their choices — whatever they may be — even if they are different than our own? Surely, there are more important things to discuss, from a social and political perspective, than the question of whether or not a woman is wearing too much or too little clothing or having too much or too little sex? Isn’t the battleground around women’s appearance, lifestyle, and consumption choices a distraction from the more pressing issues of social justice?

Thoughts?

For more posts like this, click here.

Women have a huge sway in politics, especially democratic politics. The female voting demographic is closely examined and catered to whenever possible. Yet, rarely are there a proportionate number of duly elected female representatives, even when political parties set specific targets. Why? Studies show, women tend not to vote for women.

In a recent Globe and Mail discussion of why Mr. Ignatieff has failed to win over women voters, after a string of quotes that suggest female voters make political decisions based on a mixture of sex-appeal and perceived trustworthiness, I found this:

Calgary businesswoman Anette Ceraficki, 44, said of him: “I really want to like him. I really want to get excited about him as a leader, but he’s not giving me much to work with.

“When you see him in public, he’s surrounded by men in grey suits. He’s not supposed to be one of those guys. I like to think of the parallel being Obama. This is my dream. He’s got women all around him, smart, strong women.”

It shocked me that the political dream of a 44 year old woman in this day and age is a powerful man surrounded by a gaggle of (I am sure, smartly dressed) women competing with each other to win his opinion. Honestly, this seems more like a male political fantasy to me. Even the most charitable reading of this women’s political fantasy seems to me inadequate. Why have a male figure-head enacting the will of a group of political über-women, when a woman could do it just as well?

Is this woman’s political dream representative of women’s political dreams, generally speaking? I suspect it is, or, at least, something very much like it. How else to explain the tendency of women to not vote for women, even when given the opportunity?

So my questions: what is your political dream and in what way is it different from this woman’s dream? Would you vote for a woman, if you knew she was going to be in charge? How would you assess her potential for political leadership? Is this article just another case of a male-dominated media perpetuating sexist stereotypes about about woman voting patterns or does it actually offer genuine insight into women’s voting patterns? How do you explain the tendency of women not to vote for women?

Personally, I’d like to know.

For more posts like this, click here.