everyone's in their underwear

when we were young, george and i would get in trouble for being too shy. we weren't willing to approach strangers for anything. getting directions to the bathroom, how much something cost, we wouldn't do it and would put up quite a fit about it. it wasn't shyness, maybe a fear of authority, maybe who knows what. we just didn't like it and wouldn't do it. my mom used to get pissed at us.

over time, you have those inhibitions beat out of you (not literally) and you become capable of approaching anyone to ask a quick question or two. i figure it's the same sort of process for public speaking. you won't do it, you're afraid of it, then you do it a few times and you realize it's no big deal. strangely, it's been the reverse for me.

i was totally accustomed to public speaking when i was younger; even going so far as to voluntarily subject myself to annual speeches for chinese school. i think when you're young, you have so many recitals, little show-and-tells, and moments of psuedo-embarassment that you just gain a fearlessness. growing up is all about being told to do things. if you're told to go speak in front of the class, you do it. if you're told to go grab your flute to perform, you do it.

then you get older, and wiser. you realize that not everyone will be clapping after you get off-stage, or that your audience isn't automatically friendly or receptive. it dawns on you that it's your job to win people over. you start to see the bored expressions on people's faces. the yawns that tear you apart and make you wonder. public speaking becomes a challenge; and the fear returns.

aside from business meetings or being the best man at a wedding, how many of us have the occassion to participate in public speaking? for most of us, never. so when you have to do it, it's this big fear of "can i do it? won't i look like a fool? do i know what i'm talking about?" again, it just takes practice. you do fifty speeches and you'll become a pro. the problem is, who the hell does fifty speeches?

i've had occassion to speak in front of semi-sized crowds. whether it's just a gathering of volunteers for a culture show, a small library talk about blogging, being on tv for a split second, my dad's funeral, playing the flute for all i'm worth, whatever. each time it's like the only way i can do it is to totally disengage from who i am...

i wait for speech jon to take over. and invariably, the stumbly, hand waving speech jon does take over. it all happens so fast; you're just kind of going along, saying whatever it is you planned to say, and nanoseconds later you're done. stage time is like time travel, ten minutes passes in what seems like five seconds. well, that's fucking great right? just wind up speech jon when i need him and let him go.

the problem however, is that while speech jon is in effect and operating, normal jon is still there. he's watching from the sidelines and evaluating everything. and when speech jon and normal jon has to mind meld for a brief moment, both are knocked out and i'm left bereft of thought.

i wish i could be both normal jon and speech jon at the same time, without having to separate the two. i wish i could stay casual and relaxed like normal jon while doing what speech jon is programmed to do. but i can't. i need to practice telling ideas to other people. i can do it quite well in my own head, but then when i try to explain something to someone, everything seems to get lost in translation. i've been noticing that i do this even when trying to explain a movie, or why i liked a particular book, or something as mundane as that. it's a skill, speech making; transmitting an organized, concise idea to someone else.

it's something i always wish i had. it's not stage fright as much as just general ineptness. if i could stand in front of people and "perform," i could be a slam poet, a (public) karaoke participant, an edcuator, a motivator, a show off, a star.

"yeah, it's sad, believe me, missy, when you're born to be a sissy
without the vim and verve.
but i could show my prowess, be a lion not a mou-ess
if i only had the nerve.
i'm afraid there's no denyin' i'm just a dandelion,
a fate i don't deserve."
-the cowardly lion-

battlefield television

it kills me that judd apatow's most successful venture is "40 year old virgin." that was such a crappy movie; now judd's name has been sullied. his actual deserving of accolades masterpiece, freaks and geeks, came out in 1999 but was cancelled after one season; because everything great must die young. his follow up, undeclared (2001), is much sillier and generally not as beloved as freaks and geeks. still, it was a critically lauded show -- and also cancelled after one season.

popular (1999) came out the same year as freaks and geeks, and lasted two seasons. this last point is criminal because despite being a good show, popular is not a classic like freaks and geeks, yet it went on longer. popular probably lasted one season longer than freaks and geeks because it was on the wb, an up-and-coming network who took a few more chances and had a bit more patience. not enough patience however, since popular ended up being cancelled after two seasons; in the middle of a cliff hanger no less, and with a third season originally promised to the creator. too bad, so sad.

having just watched the first disk for both shows, i have to weigh in: which show is better? undeclared or popular?

first, the two shows have separate settings. undeclared is set in college, popular is set in high school. classic college based shows: felicity. classic high school based shows: freaks and geeks, my so called life, wonder years (junior high), and 90210 to an extent. high school shows tend to deal with popularity and how to achieve/maintain it. college shows tend to revolve around finding yourself or looking in the mirror and making that change.

undeclared sort of takes a high school slant on college. the main character, steven, is a dorky guy who is concerned with being cool in college. of course, it doesn't dwell there, otherwise undeclared would just be sam weir gone to university, and they could have called it freaks and geeks 2: still dorky.

but luckily, steven gets laid in the first episode, meets some cool friends, and the whole issue of him not being cool is essentially dropped. the rest of the series starts to segue into slice of life college moments. boyfriend of the girl steven slept with visits; steven needs to find an on-campus job when his dad can't pay tuition; a late night support group of students confined to the common lounge while their roommates get it on, etc.

the problem was, after a few episodes, you had all these characters and amusing situations but there seemed to be no purpose to it all. perhaps it's a meta-critique of college in general, but i doubt it. there was no strong unrequited romance, no strong story arcs, and not enough direction or insight into the characters. sure it was funny, but was that it?

on the other hand, popular sucked me in with shocking revelations at the end of each episode (a technique perfected by grey's anatomy) and the continuity of the characters and situations froced me to continue watching. in the beginning, you don't really see anything fresh in storylines like: will the cool girl and uncool girl get along? can the fat girl become a cheerleader? will the star quarterback choose the school musical over football? but by episode five i was lusting for the second dvd just to know what happens.

popular is your typical cool kids versus uncool kids story. everybody loves the cheerleaders; nobody pays attention to the geeks/weirdos/nerds/fat people. classic tale, can't really fuck it up. the first two episodes of popular were a little rough for me. it was a bit like a high-schooler's ally mcbeal type of show (swinging wildly between silly montages and then "deep" scenes), but with obvious caricatures and stereotypes, and no entirely likable characters. by the third episode however, i was starting to dig the show. it was witty, mean, and they stopped hammering you over the head with big moral punchlines. i liked it. a lot.

i'll probably end up watching both shows through the first season just to get a fuller grasp of everything but i think i like popular better, simply because it has the better lines. if a girl refering to someone as "mary tyler whore" doesn't make you laugh, then we have different senses of humor. undeclared and popular are both definitely comedies first, dramas second (similar to scrubs) and i'm not normally a huge fan of shows like that; i prefer my shows to be witty, observational, touching, and without overt silliness. but hey, both popular and undeclared are light years ahead of anything on television today.

with my so called life in 1994, felicity in 1998, then freaks and geeks, popular, and undeclared in the 1999-2001 range, those seven years may represent the epoch of television teen angst -- before everything became the oc and about who hooked up with whom. throw in gilmore girls, dawson's creek, party of five, plus others i'm surely forgetting, and you're looking at the best era to have been stuck in front of your television -- and stuck you were because it was pre-tivo.

something old, something new

craigslist has a posting of "advice to young men from an old man." some of it is interesting, some of it is rubbish, but here's a few i'd like to highlight and reflect upon.

17. don't speak ill of your wife/girlfriend. back her up against the world, even if she's wrong. she should know that you have her back. when she needs your help, give it. she should know that you'll take her part.

i think this is very important. how else can a girl know that you'll defend her at all costs unless you actually do so? my problem here is that i don't think i should have to defend someone if they're wrong. which would make me a very hesitant white knight i suppose; or not a knight at all. ideally, a girl shouldn't even have to ask for defense, it should be provided a moment before she even realizes she needs it.

20. don't bother with "emotional affairs." they are just a vehicle for women to flirt and have someone make them feel good about themselves. that's the part of a relationship they want. for you it is a lot of work and investment in time. if they are having an emotional affair with you, they're probably fucking someone else.

i'll leave this one alone. for the record, emotional affairs are common among both genders and really, don't they just make the day go by?

21. becoming a woman's friend and confidant is not going to get you into an intimate relationship. if you haven't gotten the girl within a reasonably short period of time, chances are you won't ever get her. she'll end up confiding to you about the sexual adventures she's having with someone else.

agree, and agree. if you're going to close the deal, you'd have done it within twelve months. then again, i've seen amazing, logic-defying, instances where persistance wins. i should blog separately about that actually. but yes, for the most part, if you can't get her to like you within a year or so, you're just a friend. give it up.

22. have and nurture friendships with women.

again, 100% agree with this one. why this old man doesn't address the nifty grey area people now tend to live in i'm not sure. perhaps there's no answer to that type of question/dilemma. oh wait, he said friendship, not friend-relationship. gotcha. yeah, have friendships (just friends) with women. it'll help you out in the long run.

and for you doubters out there: yes, girls and boys can be just platonic friends. the caveat being that 80% of guys can't or won't do it.

23. realize that love is a numbers game. guys fall in love easily. you're going to see some girl and feel like you'll die if you don't get her. if she rejects you, move on to the next one. it's her loss.

tragically, this is true. men fall in a love with anything, their problem is acquiring. women have the opposite problem.

choose or lose

i'm watching the first season of popular (pretty enjoyable by the third episode) and i made a little impromptu list of what generally made people popular in high school -- or in my case, unpopular. it's based on what clubs/activities you chose to do or were associated with. scary how accurate this is isn't it? like if you joined this club or that club, that really defined how cool you were? it begs the question: are the activites inherently cool/uncool or do cool/uncool people gravitate toward certain activites? anyway, here's the list. which one(s) were you?

popular: jock, inner circle cheerleader
cool: football basketball soccer athlete, cheerleader, class president, drug dealer
neutral: troubled kid, honors society, student government, athlete, rebel, key club, foreign kid
uncool: drama, dance, band, flags, language clubs
dorks: academic bowl, mathlete, united nations
losers: av club, chess club, computer geek

weekend update

every time i've quit a job, something better and much happier has come along. i'm a big quitter, what of it? i'm not a huge believer in sticking something out just because it's stable and might be good for society. then again, that type of thinking has led me to leave a slew of unfinished things in my life -- namely college. but hey, why quibble?

one month ago i was slugging it out at a mortgage place, waking up early, taking lunch time naps in my car. then i quit, threw myself into various projects -- few which came to actual fruition -- but i was having fun. and then just as i thought i would have some time to do nothing, i jumped into working for hong in la.

then i found out that my book's been doing not so bad and i'm getting paid more on it. then i found out that another book proposal "shows promise" and i have to rewrite it asap. if this second book proposal works out, i can write off subscriptions to us magazine and glamour magazine.

you know how sometimes you know that the next seven days of your life could be pretty big in determining the future? like you're about to go one way or the other and this is the week that'll decide it? that's this week for me.

good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.

my agent, my (love) life

lilly likes to talk about meeting somebody's representative when you're dating. it's a phenomenon everybody knows about. for the first few dates you get the best of somebody. they're nicely groomed, well behaved, attentive, funny, and interesting. after a few dates however, the representative fades and the real person shines through.

this is also known as the "honeymoon period" if the dating turns into a relationship. after six months of dating the representative, you suddenly wake up one morning to an entirely new person. surly, forgetful, stubborn, unkempt, totally useless, and not what you signed up for. you feel duped. the nice guy is suddenly an ass, etc.

here's the thing, we all have our representative but what we really need is an agent.

what would a relationship agent do? well, what does a real agent do? they go out to find you deals and then they set the terms to those deals. they'll lay out what's expected, what you can live with, what you can live without, what you can and can't stand. the representative hooks'em, the agent books'em; and gives them the lowdown.

no dump clause? let's talk about it. a twenty-four hour moratorium after fights? put it in the contract. no contact with exes? sign here please. a romantic dinner at least once a week? date night on thursday? big celebrations on valentine's day? check, check, let's re-visit last one.

see how this would work? once you have an agent set your standards for success, both parties are free to enjoy each other within pre-approved guidelines. no more surprises, no more stunning revelations. when in doubt, refer to the contract. does anyone not like this idea?

the only question is, would you have to have another person as your agent? or could you represent yourself? i'd assume it'll be better to have third-parties represent both people, but then you have to kick out a fee. but isn't 10-15% worth a happy future?

the math of writing

have you ever tried being a freelance writer? ok, me neither. but it's not a pretty world out there. ever heard anyone say "oh, a writer eh? that must be very lucrative!" nobody says that because writing's not lucrative -- freelance or otherwise. barring great skill, luck, or both, a budding writer is looking at minimum wage or less. many successful writers/poets subsist on grants and awards -- meaning free money -- or teaching. writers love to teach; or they have to teach.

i read that back in the day, $1 a word was customary for a professional writer. maybe not customary, but not unusual for a reputable magazine or newspaper. that rate now? still a dollar a word -- or less, nevermind inflation. actually, to get to the $1 per word mark you'd have to be an experienced writer working for a well established entity. otherwise $1 would be your pipedream. your community newspaper probably pays ten cents a word. newspapers? 35-cents or so. glossy magazines? maybe 50-cents a word. when they say "don't quit your day job," they're probably talking to writers.

of course, fifty-cents a word could seem pretty good. i mean, words are cheap; a few extra "an's" or "the's" here and there and you've made a few bucks. but no. usually a normal sized article is what? a thousand words? that's five hundred dollars for one article. not bad until you consider how much effort might go into researching, writing, and polishing that piece. i have friends who make more than $500 during a lunch break.

that's not to mention actually getting someone to offer you an article to write. heck, i'd probably pay companies to let me write for them. so, even at one article per week at market rates, you're barely making any gravy; nevermind putting dinner on the table.

am i complaining? no. i'm just in awe of people who hustle and have enough persistence, talent, and know-how to make a living as a freelance writer (freelance anything really). it's amazing to me because the math just doesn't seem to add up. actually, i don't get how some people support a family, have kids, a car, a house and all that while making $12/hour. so really, i'm easily befuddled by the world of personal finance.

for the record, on my book, i made maybe about 20-cents a word. i feel like that's kind of high. so really i've already been overpaid. great, i've already peaked as a writer. perhaps i should consider blogging for three-cents a word?

a piece of universal advice when writing is: "don't use a ten-dollar word when the fifty-cent one will do." that should be changed to "charge at least fifty-cents a word, or starve."