Two blogs I have been enjoying lately:
http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com
http://sexfoodandcomicbooks.com/
These are two totally nerdy blogs written by folks associated with the porn industry and I love them. The first is written by Zak S, and is surprisingly thoughtful exploration of Dungeons and Dragons. I don't even really like Dungeons and Dragons, but I don't mind reading his posts about Vampires, being a good Game Master and the gaming sessions he has been running with folks like Sasha Grey, Kimberly Kane, Mandy Morbid and Satine Phoenix. The second is Satine Phoenix's blog about things that she digs. She's apparently a huge comic book nerd, perhaps a little less than I am. She has vegan recipes and makes recommendations for sex toys and comic books alike.
I totally get that.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Like Edison's
Here's a short thought:
My bias against discussion is something I've learned to see as very English. I've known political theatre groups in Europe which would readily cancel a rehearsal, but never a discussion. My feeling is that the best argument may be a testimony to the skill of the presenter than to the excellence of the solution advocated. Also the bulk of discussion time is visibly taken up with transactions of status which have nothing to do with the problem to be solved. My attitude is like Edison's, who found a solvent for rubber by putting bits of rubber in every solution he could think of, and beat all those scientists who were approaching the problem theoretically.
From Impro, by Keith Johnstone
I'm re-reading Impro, which can be considered one of the seminal books on improvisation. The last time I read it must have been close to twenty years ago. I consider this a formative book to the way I view the world. Reading about Johnstone's approach to teaching, I see a lot of his ideas have been present in my teaching, theatrical and otherwise.
What I enjoy about the passage is that it implicitly draws a distinction between discussion and communication. Perhaps Johnstone meant to draw a distinction between argument and work. That seems valid to me too.
My bias against discussion is something I've learned to see as very English. I've known political theatre groups in Europe which would readily cancel a rehearsal, but never a discussion. My feeling is that the best argument may be a testimony to the skill of the presenter than to the excellence of the solution advocated. Also the bulk of discussion time is visibly taken up with transactions of status which have nothing to do with the problem to be solved. My attitude is like Edison's, who found a solvent for rubber by putting bits of rubber in every solution he could think of, and beat all those scientists who were approaching the problem theoretically.
From Impro, by Keith Johnstone
I'm re-reading Impro, which can be considered one of the seminal books on improvisation. The last time I read it must have been close to twenty years ago. I consider this a formative book to the way I view the world. Reading about Johnstone's approach to teaching, I see a lot of his ideas have been present in my teaching, theatrical and otherwise.
What I enjoy about the passage is that it implicitly draws a distinction between discussion and communication. Perhaps Johnstone meant to draw a distinction between argument and work. That seems valid to me too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
