I have good news to share. I got a call earlier today from the Grand Theatre, and they cast me in the role of Freddy in My Fair Lady. The Grand is a community theatre that is connected with the community college. It is a beautiful place. Auditions were on Saturday, and then callbacks were on Tuesday. I seriously wasn't certain what to expect. There were only twelve guys at the callbacks, and seven men were going to be cast, so I thought I had decent chances. But there were three of us younger guys reading and singing for this one part, Freddy, and I wasn't sure, if I didn't get that part over the other two guys, whether there would be an opening in other minor roles for someone of my age/look/etc. I'd say that the two other guys who were reading/singing the same stuff as I were easily more talented that the rest of the men in the audition, and I thought perhaps either of them might be considered more suitable for the role, depending on what the director was looking for. One of them had a look and a composure on stage that I thought could be preferable to mine for that particular role, so anyway... I just wasn't sure. So now I'm in, and that's exciting. I hope at least one of the other younger guys gets in the show, too, because I'm dure I'd have a much harder time connecting with any of the older guys there, whereas, I was already talking easily and getting to know those two. Anyway, I'm thrilled. The show runs from May 4 through May 19, and I believe there a couple of matinees in there. So if anyone thinks they might be in the Salt Lake area around that time, they should stop by and see the show.
In other news, Tuesday night seems to have been a stellar night. Not only did I do well in callbacks, securing myself a good role in a decent community theatre, but Cassie and I went bowling. She bowls regularly on a league, which I think is really cool, and so she's gotten me into the game quite a bit more, and I enjoy going as much as I feel I can afford. So we went bowling that same night, after my callbacks were over, and on our second game I bowled a 213. I had a smile on my face the entire evening, I think. It was a lot of fun.
Anyway, not much else to say right now. I'm still reading Civil Disobedience and Blue Like Jazz, and they are both thought-provoking in their own seperate ways, but I still can't process any significant responses to them yet. So I'll leave it at that.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Civil Disobedience
I'm pretty tired right now, so I doubt I'll develop any truly cohesive thoughts, but I am nevertheless in the mood to write. My reading lately is divided between too many avenues, but nevertheless, I find much of it thought-provoking. Most especially, I am very interested in what I read in "Civil Disobedience," by Henry David Thoreau. I've never read Thoreau before, though I've wanted to, always thought it would be a good idea. He has some interesting things to say about voting, which I think I like. I've gotten flak from some politically active americans for not taking much interest in elections, and though I do not quote the following to excuse my choices (such as not voting), for I do not look for excuses and I do not so far regret them, I do find what he has to say quite poignant. He talks about a respectable man who wishes to make a moral decision in his vote, but is not satisfied with the choices.
"He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only available one, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought. Oh for a man who is a man, and, as my neighbor says, has a bone in his back which you cannot pass your hand through!"
On some news show, I think on MSNBC, they were talking about Hilary Clinton. Some anti-war people, who arguably are in favor through most of the country, were arguing that Hilary should apologize for approving of the Iraq War in the beginning. I don't know that this has anything to do with the aforementioned quote, nor can I say why I find this interesting. The question on the show was whether she could win the presidency if she didn't apologize. But some were arguing that she probably would apologize, that it would raise more questions from the public and do more harm than good to her candidacy. If she apologizes, then what would we think of her? That she's wishy-washy? That she is swayed by the majority and doesn't follow her convictions? If she does not apologize, some may say she's a hypocrite, but many might not think it an issue.
Anyway, I just found it interesting. And I find it interesting how so much of politics is about image and public opinion. Thoreau says something about majority rule that I found interesting. He talked about how everyone votes according to their morals and convitions, so to speak, but when the decision comes in against their assured convictions, they accept it as just, because it is the decision of the majority. We've been brought up now in a worldview that says that if the majority agrees, then it is just. Clearly, any thinking person is capable of discerning that this is not the case. The majority of Germany went along with Hitler, approved his actions, and followed his orders. Some conscientious men and women, who stood by their convictions, did what they could to resist, taking it upon themselves to break the law, by virtue of the fact that the law was unjust.
Like I said, there's little cohesion tonight, just a bunch of thoughts mulling around in my muddled brain. But I'm sure all of this is connected somehow and quite relevant. And I'm sure if my brain was clear and I had more knowledge of history and government, I would have a lot tosay on the matter. But for now, I will have to be content to simply ponder these musings, and perhaps others will have more to say on the topic of Civil Disobedience.
"He forthwith adopts one of the candidates thus selected as the only available one, thus proving that he is himself available for any purposes of the demagogue. His vote is of no more worth than that of any unprincipled foreigner or hireling native, who may have been bought. Oh for a man who is a man, and, as my neighbor says, has a bone in his back which you cannot pass your hand through!"
On some news show, I think on MSNBC, they were talking about Hilary Clinton. Some anti-war people, who arguably are in favor through most of the country, were arguing that Hilary should apologize for approving of the Iraq War in the beginning. I don't know that this has anything to do with the aforementioned quote, nor can I say why I find this interesting. The question on the show was whether she could win the presidency if she didn't apologize. But some were arguing that she probably would apologize, that it would raise more questions from the public and do more harm than good to her candidacy. If she apologizes, then what would we think of her? That she's wishy-washy? That she is swayed by the majority and doesn't follow her convictions? If she does not apologize, some may say she's a hypocrite, but many might not think it an issue.
Anyway, I just found it interesting. And I find it interesting how so much of politics is about image and public opinion. Thoreau says something about majority rule that I found interesting. He talked about how everyone votes according to their morals and convitions, so to speak, but when the decision comes in against their assured convictions, they accept it as just, because it is the decision of the majority. We've been brought up now in a worldview that says that if the majority agrees, then it is just. Clearly, any thinking person is capable of discerning that this is not the case. The majority of Germany went along with Hitler, approved his actions, and followed his orders. Some conscientious men and women, who stood by their convictions, did what they could to resist, taking it upon themselves to break the law, by virtue of the fact that the law was unjust.
Like I said, there's little cohesion tonight, just a bunch of thoughts mulling around in my muddled brain. But I'm sure all of this is connected somehow and quite relevant. And I'm sure if my brain was clear and I had more knowledge of history and government, I would have a lot tosay on the matter. But for now, I will have to be content to simply ponder these musings, and perhaps others will have more to say on the topic of Civil Disobedience.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
books
My second draft is finished. That's really good news. I hope to send the manuscript to an agent or a publisher in a couple of months. I'd like to finish one more draft to the work, and then I'll consider it ready. I finished the last 70-page section yesterday, and frankly, I had a good time reading my own writing. I know there are still some weak areas in the narrative, but I'd like to see what other people say about it before deciding for myself what to fix. But I really like my characters, and I enjoy the storyline.
Now that I have some time, while I wait for several people to get me some feedback on my book, I guess I need to get started on the sequel. I've already "started" it, but it's mostly intros for some other characters and some ideas I have for what needs to happen to them. I'm not going to turn it into another five billion character piece, where every single semi-significant person gets airtime in the story. I just want to focus on a couple of other people. So I'm shifting the focus to a little orphan girl, a priest, and a piece of history section about a queen. The latter will be like a flashback, a story from an ancient past that coincides with the current one. The good and noble knight from the first book will still be the/a central character. This is going to be a difficult story to pull together, I think, but I'm excited about hte characters. I'm looking forward to writing a spunky, intelligent, seven-year-old orphan girl. And I'm happy to delve into the disillusionment of a baffled priest. I needed to have several ideas in place, so I could set up for it in the first book. The first book could definitely stand on its own, but I think it will be a good idea to be ready with a sequel in case I actually get published and start selling books. Plus I enjoy the story, and I think I'll have a good time continuing it.
Anyway, I think I'm going to read some of Blue Like Jazz, because my girlfriend wants me to. Hehe. I'm not promising to finish it. I like it, and all, but those books never hold my interest for any extended period of time.
Now that I have some time, while I wait for several people to get me some feedback on my book, I guess I need to get started on the sequel. I've already "started" it, but it's mostly intros for some other characters and some ideas I have for what needs to happen to them. I'm not going to turn it into another five billion character piece, where every single semi-significant person gets airtime in the story. I just want to focus on a couple of other people. So I'm shifting the focus to a little orphan girl, a priest, and a piece of history section about a queen. The latter will be like a flashback, a story from an ancient past that coincides with the current one. The good and noble knight from the first book will still be the/a central character. This is going to be a difficult story to pull together, I think, but I'm excited about hte characters. I'm looking forward to writing a spunky, intelligent, seven-year-old orphan girl. And I'm happy to delve into the disillusionment of a baffled priest. I needed to have several ideas in place, so I could set up for it in the first book. The first book could definitely stand on its own, but I think it will be a good idea to be ready with a sequel in case I actually get published and start selling books. Plus I enjoy the story, and I think I'll have a good time continuing it.
Anyway, I think I'm going to read some of Blue Like Jazz, because my girlfriend wants me to. Hehe. I'm not promising to finish it. I like it, and all, but those books never hold my interest for any extended period of time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)