RAT COLUMBINE ramifications - aka A CLARIFICATION NIGHTMARE

[InTheLime@aol.com]

Oh shoot.  (drops eyes, looks up quickly)  I was hoping I was done with 
lengthy clarification letters.  (shuffles feet in slight state of 
embarrassment...but not really) Stop laughing, you guys...I mean it.  O.K., I 
knew better, who am I fooling. (head up firmly) I'm roasted, again, eh?  
Wasn't there something else I was supposed to be doing tonight?  (looks at 
sweet as pie husband who shrugs shoulders and runs for cover wondering how he 
ended up with this hellion - rubs hand - resorts to humming FLIGHT OF THE 
VALKERIES cause can't find the tape)

Oh...(bleep) it... here goes nothing...

In a message dated 99-04-24 16:15:03 EDT, David writes:
>>but you may not be open to hear this, i don't know.<<

O.K. Once again my rhetoric has made someone think they know me and my 
motives - when all is but chaos and confusion.  I should have probably saved 
my note on perception from back during one of our past debates (was it as far 
back as small theatre in Philadelphia?) and just send it out every time I 
decide to jump into a debate (as a pre-debate "warning").  

Short of it (stop laughing Brad...I must have been brief in SOMETHING I've 
written...somewhere?  I used to write Haiku...those are short - right?)  We 
all perceive things differently. So what YOU (anyone crazy enough to be 
reading this after above warning) perceive may not be what I actually meant 
you to perceive (a common theatrical problem we have as producers...as 
artists).  THAT was the short of THAT.

Don't worry David...I'm open to hearing ANYTHING...I'm even open to joking 
and joshing about my outspoken controversial postings (believe me, I get them 
off-list pretty regularly - you should hear the ribbing I get when I drop 
into Theatre Double, 1619 Walnut Street).  

But liking debate doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with everything you 
all (collectively) say.  That's why it's called debate, right?  Heck, next 
week I may not even agree with what I said this week.  That's probable 
actually...cause what the hell was I thinking trying to understand the 
motives of those two killers?  Sheesh.  Must have been PMS (o.k., who did I 
alienate with that?)

What fun would it be for any of us if we always agreed...and why would we be 
HERE on the RAT LIST.  Speaking only for myself, if I wanted everyone to 
agree with ME, I certainly wouldn't be on a list that prides itself openly on 
being artistic rebels WITH causes (people who actually picket, and march and 
mean it...I love that!)  and I wouldn't have my company do shows on such 
topics as public execution (PAY PER VIEW - which did offend some people, I 
confess), and teenagers killing their jailors (that would be LIFE IS A DREAM 
actually - which inspired so many teenagers to think about violence in a new 
way) - or men who commit suicide after murdering the injenue (that would be 
HE WHO GETS SLAPPED by Leonid Andreyev which is our year 2000 major project). 
 

Boy, I certainly wouldn't be artistic director of a movement based theatre 
company if I wanted EVERYONE to like what I have to say (and move) about :-) 
...Lordy, we don't even put musicals in our season - you can imagine how few 
subscribers would aprove of that (uhm...if we could stay in one place long 
enough to get some subscribers).  

Let me just interject (show excitement) how thrilled I was when I thought 
that I did not agree completely with John Sylvaine - and then he wrote a 
response to my offensiveness and had me all wrapped up -  darn it.  I love 
that man's words...and if he tries hard enough, I think he could convince me 
to change my mind on just about anything.  I perceive that this is because he 
spends a lot of time thinking about what he's going to say before he says it. 
 But maybe he just rips it off like Mozart did...whatever the case, deep 
thought process always impresses me.  I'm easy that way.

Believe me...I love the fact that so many people are willing to debate...and 
I get passionately involved in responding BECAUSE I love hearing all the 
opinions and Debating with YOU (the collective).  I take words 
seriously...but sometimes I play with them for effect...and that's the 
rhetoric that always gets me lambasted.  Which, incidentally...I really 
enjoy.  (picture Sally Fields at the Oscars...: "Wow...their annoyed by me!  
And I think I might really have gotten them thinking!")

Anyway...that's WHY I brought what I knew was a controversial view on  
Columbine HERE...to you...and I think if you look back you'll find that Skip 
did actually start the topic by asking for opinions about Columbine and how 
we as artists should/could/would respond.  I didn't know that there was a new 
rule on RAT saying I had to stay within tight, specific parameters of 
discussion...is that something I did actually miss on a posting?  I know that 
there was some question of whether the NATO bombing should be a RAT 
topic...but I thought the outcome there was that all is fair game here - just 
my interpretation, I admit.  Persnickity perceptions.

<< i think what is going on here, as illuminated by your last email, is that 
you 
 have not read the previous emails that i wrote for the conference. if you 
 had, you would have a reference for my name on file, >>
Actually, I think if you look back through your postings (and blessings on 
you if you have anough memory...uh computer memory that is...to save them 
all), you will note that I responded to Skip's original email as did some of 
you.  I was there when Bobby quoted Herman Hesse (love that).  I was there 
when Jerry talked about researching a piece on teenage violence (sounds 
similar to what I'm doing, would love to discuss further). I was there when 
someone noted that what scared them was that they didn't feel any connection 
to it (can't remember who that was, sorry).  I was there for all of John's 
beautiful words, and Skip's heartfelt follow up (and kind offer to help me 
out with said teen violence project)...and unfortunately although I read all 
of the postings - I've only saved the ones that touched me deeply...sorry, my 
hard drive fills up weekly and I'm constantly having to clear this aging baby 
of debris.  

In the note to which you refer, David,  I was responding to a specific (as 
you admit) note of yours which did not have a signature, and I'm sorry if you 
were concerned by the fact that I didn't remember your name specifically. Be 
assured, though, that I have read all of the Columbine postings to RAT since 
the first one hit the email-box. I've printed them and asked other "off list" 
people to read them. Sometimes they hit me deeply, other times I read them 
and then toss them.  I also read all of the NATO postings before that. As 
usual I've probably rambled on too much to clear up a little topic.  I'm so 
(insert expletive here) anal!  My apologies for those of you who just don't 
give a #@$% about this apology and clarification and are tired of the fact 
that I take everyone so darned literally all the time.  I suppose that I 
should clarify that "#@$%" was said with humor, not with mal-intent.

<<i have to say that last letter you wrote him about doom had an ugly element 
of 
semantic violence in it, especially the way you repeated his name over and 
over again>>
As far as repeating Josh's name in my notes to him, that is because a few 
months ago I unintentionally angered someone (and right now I don't remember 
who and have since deleted that debate) because I referred to her as "you" 
instead of by her first name.  As some RAT's may recall (this was one of the 
debates about playwrights not getting produced), I then promised I would be 
very specific to whom I was addressing comments, so that there would be no 
confusion.  Now there's a new confusion...go figure.

I freely admit I haven't done any studies of semantic violence that involved 
the repetition of names...so I didn't know this was a specific semantic 
violence tactic.  I took an interpersonal communications class in college and 
was told (in text and by the professor) that the best approach to 
communication is to use a person's name frequently when discussing important 
issues...too much is better than too little. This email communication is so 
tough to gauge though when it comes to the old standards of interpersonal 
communication - since it's all writing, but moves as fast as speech.  The 
curse and the blessing of email is that you CAN go back and read it and read 
it and read it....

>>but to write a nasty letter to somebody and then turn around a joke on them 
to get all preachy about violent tendencies is absurd<<
Absurd?  Me?  Never...uhm...sometimes...uhm...o.k., I admit it...I like the 
absurd!  I love the absurd.  The truth is out...more gravy please.

But a "nasty letter"?  As far as the tenor of notes that were specifically 
dealing with comments by Josh, I assure you, I had no intent to be "nasty."  
Clear and calculated, perhaps...to incite response?  Definitely!  And more 
importantly, I intended to be specific in addressing his comments.  Josh 
called my first (long, rambling...perhaps even boring) note..."reductive."  
So I repeated his own word back to him showing him what I perceive as 
reduction.  I've just reread the "nasty" note, and I humbly (as humble as I 
can get) suggest that it IS perhaps passionate...but not close to nasty.  
There are no arrows (from my perception, I reiterate) aimed at Josh.  But 
perception, as always, is the key here.  If you found it nasty (David), I 
apologize to you personally.  That was not my intent.

In the note to which you (uhm, David) refer, I turned the word "warning" 
around on him (Josh)... because words are very important to me as an artist, 
and I'm always trying to find exactly the right one (that doesn't mean I 
always succeed - that doesn't mean that tomorrow when I reread this, and 
sadly enough David, I will reread it again and again...that I won't go...OH 
HELL!  THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT! - NO wonder they perceived me as an 
asshole!").   But I do spend way too much time reading these buggers.  Maybe 
that's why I appear so passionate (aka "nasty").

In regards to the response to Josh's note...I pointed out that I was pretty 
sure the note was a joke.  Gosh...Darn it... I just didn't find it funny - 
probably due to current events.  Words are important. So, I used that "joke" 
as a segue to show what a student at Columbine might have been going through 
when a black coated boy urged him to "go home...I like you..."  Is it worth 
worrying about, or is it a joke?  Should I report this?  Nah...it's just a 
joke.  And you know what...it wasn't a joke.  I ASSUME Josh was joking.  So 
do you David.  But should I?  Should you?  Where do our respective 
responsibilities lie?  I don't know either one of you personally...so how do 
I know that you are joking if it isn't funny to me?  That's another joy of 
theatre, isn't..."Hey Ethel...I thought this was supposed to be a 
comedy...But George, that reviewer it laughing his head off."  Perception.

As a point of reference to the responsibility we all have as artistis, I was 
trying to illuminate the importance that even one word can have...such as you 
tagging onto the phrase "cross" and deciding that I have a martyr complex 
(which I probably do...doesn't everyone?)  Such as your assumption that 
because I did not remember your name, I must not have read anything you wrote 
before (which I actually did...I just didn't save it all - or remember you 
specifically.).  One word ommitted...and you were able to create what, to 
you, seemed like a very logical conclusion. Words are important.  To me they 
are important, I mean...to you they may not be - but it seems like they are 
from your posting.  I don't know you, though.  Right?  And you don't know me.

<<go back and read what we have all been saying here about art and 
insurgency>>
That is awesome advice, which I subscribe to whole-heartedly.  As noted, I 
read these things way too much...always assuming that they may trigger a new 
work of art in me (and thank you everybody...I've gotten a couple of short 
work outlines out of this debate alone).  I'm sure I missed the true intent 
of someone's postings.  I can't possibly be getting it all.  I urge you 
(anyone who's still reading now who has any energy what-so-ever after 
slogging through another rambling diatribe from that Vagabond chickie) to go 
back and read as well and get second and third impressions of things.  I 
think you, too, may have missed some of what was said.  Perhaps the colors 
you see are not the colors I see?  Perhaps my garbage is your treasure, and 
your garbage is my art?

My original note was about understanding both sides, and what offended people 
SEEMED to be the idea that I would attribute any fault for what occurred to 
the many victims -  and perhaps "how the hell can she understand the reasons 
for choosing violence as a response to abuse."  Maybe this shocking opinion 
just came too close upon the heels of the event.  Maybe if people look back 
now they will see that what I said was "we are all responsible for this."  I 
just said it in my usual lengthy, wordy - blah, blah (as my Grandmother 
says)...

A scene I love in Amadeus:  the king says to Mozart  "too many notes - take 
some out."  I'm glad Mozart didn't take his advice.  

<<give us all some more of that, that beauty, and we will be more than 
willing to shower you with ours>>.

Oh Honey (I use this endearment to show that I am right in there with you and 
appreciate your sentiment, I do not say it as some might perceive to be 
vindictive or patronizing - but I know that I'm pissing someone off 
somewhere...that is one of my unique gifts).  I would hug you if I could.  So 
many of you on the RAT list have indeed showered me with great beauty in the 
past until I was quite wet from it (take that any way you want to)...and so 
many of you have opened my eyes to great ugliness as well... and some of you 
have downright pissed me off.  I need all of that in my life to appreciate 
the extent of each in the world.

I do, truly, appreciate the offer of exchanges of beauty.  Please know how 
dear (rare) I find that.  Know, though, that I do not always want to reflect 
beauty.  The world is scarey and terrorizes me and those I love...the actions 
of others inspire pain in me.  I want to explore that with people of 
intellect and art.  That's why I'm here.

I am lucky to live in a home filled with beauty with a husband who loves me.  
I am lucky to love and be loved by others outside my home. I am lucky to work 
with a theatre troupe filled with the most beautiful and wonderful struggling 
artists I have ever met with a partner who is my great blessing.  I am lucky 
that Dennis introduced me to RAT.

I am lucky that I crawled through being abused...and yes "kids will be 
kids..." IS a common response to high school abuse, but it's abuse 
none-the-less - and I made it to this place of great luck and beauty.  But 
who wants to watch a play about all the good things in my life?  It is the 
edge of chaos that calls for exploration.  

There's so much of the world that is not beautiful which is reflected in my 
postings and many others on this list serve - I expose myself to it, and 
become one with it, because as an artist that is the place where I ask 
questions, where I perceive exploration is necessary.  Everything is not 
beautiful.  I want to see what is there and ask questions about it and 
explore edges.  That's why I do theatre with that tortured, exquisite, 
ensemble of Vagabonds.    

I'm not drawing any lines around me David...I'm crossing over ones that I am 
told are off limits and questioning why...why...why are they there?  I know 
that's not o.k. with everyone...but it's o.k. with me.  

And it's o.k. if you don't agree with me.  In fact it's GREAT! 
I'm so damned cool with that I didn't even break a sweat being this "absurd."

P.S.  Dear God...I didn't call the authorities...but if they're out there 
looking over our shoulders...I, personally, think Josh was just joking.  If 
I'm wrong...I hope he doesn't bomb an arcade and get me all guilty feeling 
about it.  But if he and David don bunny suits and shoot up arcades with 
water pistols, I hope he gets media coverage - and then corporations fund 
their theatre company(ies).  Amen.

--aileen (still of Philadelphia)