"You need to take more risks."
He was stretched back in his chair with his feet propped up on the table. He was called "Dr. Doom" for a reason and I suspected this was one of those "Doom" moments. The remainder of the evaluation "committee" nodded in agreement. I sat there, probably looking like a deer caught in the headlights thinking, "what the hell do you mean by that?" but said, "Oh, ok." I left the meeting feeling bewildered and not just a little bit humiliated.
I was in my second year of graduate school at a time when the theatre department was in shambles and the graduate program a source of extreme frustration. The first year had me questioning whether I wanted to be an actor at all. I'd had the great misfortune of being subjected to an acting teacher who delighted in mind games and thought nothing of humiliating you as a class exercise. He was gone when my second year began. The new instructors were better - constructive as opposed to destructive and respected hard work.
And, yet, I was struggling, although I didn't want to admit it. I limped through graduate school landing a couple of choice roles toward the end - but I continually received the message, one way or another, that I needed to "take more risks." But no-one could define for me what that meant. I had to find out on my own.
I'll spare you the details of how and when I finally had that major light bulb moment, but when it happened, I understood immediately what "Dr. Doom" meant. Explaining it is not easy, however I am going to try because I think it relates to some recent posts by colleagues and may shed some light on the sentiments behind them.
Okay. I've now sat here for a few minutes staring at the screen attempting to find the words. Oh, to have Otis' muse.
Personal investment. Putting yourself on the line. Pulling back the curtain. The great actors/artists do this and you know it when you see it. You are moved - either to tears or to laughter, anger, frustration, some visceral reaction; or you recognize something of yourself as a result of their work. Or their work elevates the mundane to a new level and presents a new perspective. It's discipline and detail. For an actor - filling every moment, reacting......... revelation, spilling your guts, and on and on.....
Friends of mine tend to roll their eyes when I step up onto my soapbox and rant on the amount of mediocrity of theatre in general in our corner of the world. The bar isn't set very high and we tend to settle for what's available instead of demanding something better. I have a deep resentment for "theatre hobbyists" who stroke their egos with a resume full of shallow performances and self deception. They paint by numbers and feel they have created something worthy of the Louvre because all 20 of their relatives in the audience gave them a standing ovation.
I am very territorial regarding my "art" and have become reticent over the years to audition for or commit to a role without questioning who else will be involved. Who's directing? Who else is in the cast? Costumer - is there one? Set design - done on something other than a napkin? Is there a budget greater than a couple hundred dollars? (The production I'm currently a part of has most of these concerns addressed which gives me comfort to know our audiences will experience something worthy of a wall in the house, if not the Louvre.) Allow me to borrow and rework a common cliche - art is in the details.
With that in mind, that is why I fully understand where BG is coming from when he says:
Blogs are such an immediate and personal art form that to see mediocrity continue to pop up is disheartening. And it’s got to be doubly frustrating for people like Pauly, Iggy, and Hank (among others) who have dedicated their time, energy, and thoughts to creating unique and engaging content, only to see uninspiring poker blogs continue to pop up at every turn, looking for a piece of these guys somewhere along the way.
I looked around at who some consider "the core group" of poker bloggers - who inspire me daily (and to who I owe a debt of gratitude to for creating in me the desire to become a better writer and not just a chronicler of hand histories, bad beats and bankroll ebbs and flows) and I came to realize, that becoming a better 'blogger' meant exactly what being an actor means to me - that I have to be able to take personal risks and lay it on the line, to put my-self heart and soul into the words on the screen, to pay attention to detail, to craft each paragraph with care and purpose. When I am able to do that - which, admittedly, isn't that often - it's those few posts that even I re-read a dozen times throughout the day, because I am immensely proud of them - I've put something that is of me up there, and if someone who reads it is 'enriched' in some tiny way by what I've written, then that's my standing 'o.'
I am very grateful for the few readers I have - especially those who are regular visitors and take the time to leave a comment, e-mail me or IM me about a particular post or thought. I'm also happy to oblige requests for link-ups, but I'll tell you, more than a couple of recent requests are already languishing with thin content and lack of posts. If you have recently started or are contemplating starting a blog, ask yourself why? And if the answer is "to be a part of the group" - then rethink it. If you are motivated to write because you feel you have something to write about - go for it. If it's engaging and honest - if you take the risk of investing yourself into what you write, your audience will find you.
Thank you BG and Pauly for saying what you have. And, BG, I have further thoughts regarding your "part deux" and "what the hell am I meant to do" aspect. I'm struggling with that as well, and wondering.....
