I'm averse to improv comedy, which I assumed this would explore, so I nearly hit 'delete' before opening. Glad I resisted the urge.
There's a similar dynamic in fine arts grad programs. In group crits and thesis defense, you're expected to explain every decision that went into your work. You need to have you 'why's' lined up in nice, logical rows. The purpose is to train students to develop projects/artworks that can be summarized in artist statements. While good art is made through this process, so is a lot of bad.
I haven't read this, but came across this book by Peter Coyote on masks, meditation and improv a few years back.
Interesting! I hated the chapter on status. I despised the claim about friends being "people we agree to play status games with," taking "games" to mean the kind each party tries to "win" --- like a board game, playing for status. That sounds tedious and false, so I put the book down in disgust. It hadn't occurred to me to read "playing status games" as being about playing *with* status. I like that take better. Thank you for sharing your notes.
Separately, I liked the idea of free-association/re-incorporation as defining a story. I was told once that my fiction was chaotic, and I felt that too. Like you describe, I've been trying for years since then to fix that by adding structure or meaning, by analyzing and understanding stories in those terms and trying to make mine more like that, and incidentally writing/wanting to write much less often. I wonder if that framework's a tool I can work with to write (it sounds appealing!) or (for me) another tool for making writing difficult and unappealing. 🤪
Wow, this was super interesting! I had never thought of reincorporation in my writing either -will start looking out for that now...
Glad I’m not the only one :)
I'm averse to improv comedy, which I assumed this would explore, so I nearly hit 'delete' before opening. Glad I resisted the urge.
There's a similar dynamic in fine arts grad programs. In group crits and thesis defense, you're expected to explain every decision that went into your work. You need to have you 'why's' lined up in nice, logical rows. The purpose is to train students to develop projects/artworks that can be summarized in artist statements. While good art is made through this process, so is a lot of bad.
I haven't read this, but came across this book by Peter Coyote on masks, meditation and improv a few years back.
https://www.innertraditions.com/books/the-lone-ranger-and-tonto-meet-buddha
Funny, Johnstone also talks somewhere about having an aversion to contemporary comedy improv, on the basis that characters never undergo real change.
Thanks for the book link!
Interesting! I hated the chapter on status. I despised the claim about friends being "people we agree to play status games with," taking "games" to mean the kind each party tries to "win" --- like a board game, playing for status. That sounds tedious and false, so I put the book down in disgust. It hadn't occurred to me to read "playing status games" as being about playing *with* status. I like that take better. Thank you for sharing your notes.
Separately, I liked the idea of free-association/re-incorporation as defining a story. I was told once that my fiction was chaotic, and I felt that too. Like you describe, I've been trying for years since then to fix that by adding structure or meaning, by analyzing and understanding stories in those terms and trying to make mine more like that, and incidentally writing/wanting to write much less often. I wonder if that framework's a tool I can work with to write (it sounds appealing!) or (for me) another tool for making writing difficult and unappealing. 🤪