Gasp!

4/28: The Real Deal

Disclaimer: I'm not associated with Trademark Properties, Richard Davis, A&E, TLC, or anything else connected with anything else. I'm just a girl watching a show. And that's that.

This episode is called Stepping Up. Or perhaps it should’ve been called “Stepping in it.”

4/21/07: The Real Deal

Television isn't even a category on Gasp, but that isn't going to stop me from blogging a show called The Real Deal", on TLC.

The show features Trademark Properties, a real estate company from South Carolina. These are the folks who were originally on A&E “Flip This House.” They were featured for only one season, but they left such an impression that they developed a fan following, which includes me.

Every week, I will dedicate myself to watching the show and writing about it here. Call it my weekend fun blogging activity. I'd like to spend more time talking about things I like, rather than railing against the things I don't.

Disclaimer: I'm not associated with Trademark Properties, Richard Davis, A&E, TLC, or anything else connected with anything else. I'm just a girl watching a show. And that's that.

“Everyday I wake up is a good day to buy real estate,” according to Richard Davis., founder of the company. If you're familiar with A&E's Flip This House, you'll recognize him, along with the cast from Trademark Properties. But A&E's old show is amateurish compared to Trademark's new program.

This version is pumped up and direct, with quality graphics and a no-fuss attitude. The object of the game is to buy ugly places, fix them up and sell them quickly. It requires lots of people, strong coordination, and adrenalin.

I suppose if that was the whole program, it would be on another do-it-yourself network. And of course, I wouldn't watch it. I don't have lots of money, I'm not involved in real estate, and I've spent most of my life renting apartments in major cities. So what's the attraction?

It's all about helping people. While Trademark's philosophy is teamwork, the founder believes its his mission to help people.

In this episode, “The House That Wouldn't Sell,” Richard buys a house from a woman who is in foreclosure. It's been on the market for 9 months. Upon hearing about the predicament, Richard makes a decision to buy it. Thus, saving the woman from bankruptcy.

In the next scene, Richard and Ginger, the investment coordinator, create a plan for renovation. It appears one thing after another is wrong with the place. There's a Bradford Pear Tree covering the front of the house, the pool is disgusting, the kitchen is cramped, and wooden planks on the floor curve. According to their schedule, they've got five days to fix everything.

At this point, you can figure where the suspense comes in. But what I found interesting are the sideline comments. This episode was very anti-Do-It-Yourself. Evidently, a nimrod put the pool pump under the house, creating a mold problem in the floor boards. Richard attempts to deal with the pool himself and over-chemicalizes it.

Since TLC reruns this show, I'm not going to tell you how it all turns out. You'll have to watch for yourself.

What I learned: This episode was all about the Cs – Confidence and commitment. Once you make a decision, see it through.

The other thing I learned: Assets are like Bradford Pear Trees. They can easily turn into liabilities if not properly honed.

Questionable Moment: What's going on with the fuzzing? In one of the first scenes, they fuzzed out Trademark's phone number on one of the signs. They're a business and they're on the net. What's up with that?

Worst commercial during the premiere: Sweet mother of pearl, I hate that Visa commercial. Followed by a close Nutri-system second.

Worst excuse by a sub/contractor: They couldn't get a hold of the landscaper because his cell phone died... for days.

Most Disgusting Moment: Not the maggots, not the pool, not even the guy who had to suck water out of the pool pump. It was that poor man who had to inspect underneath the house. That has to be the worst job in the world. I wonder what kind of spiders he runs into on a daily basis. Sheesh.

Best Quote: “Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner.”

Final Verdict: Great show - much better than their old one. Good to be introduced to other Trademark people as well. Looking forward to next week's episode.

For more on The Real Deal, click here.

On writing violence

Whenever a theater person gets into serious trouble, Jethro is always quick to tell me about it. Usually his email will give me the straight up news, followed by something like, "What's going on with theater people????"

He did it with the Alabama church fires, and it did it again today.

Still, I didn't want to be the first to this bring this up. Isaac did. Dan Trujillo wrote about it as well. So now I feel like I can mention it.

As a writer, I regularly explore areas in my psyche that I would never actually want to manifest. I may write about a killer, for instance. That doesn't mean I want to murder. For those who believe art is cathartic, writing about such things could be a sign of health.

On the other hand, there is a relationship between the writer and what's being written. I wrote some heavy-handed suicidal poems when I was younger; it was far more realistic than I'd care to admit. Undoubtedly, if I did something ugly back then, people would've pointed a finger at my work.

But there's a difference between exploring the shadow and planning out violent fantasies via theater.

I've had long periods of writing about rage, pain and hurt and I'd like to think I'm a healthier person for doing it.

However, as a playwright I'm mapping out an experience for the actors to share with an audience. Therefore, I have to think about other people. Will they want to take the ride with me? What are they going to get out of it? Is it going to leave them feeling disgusted with themselves? With humanity? With life in general?

I'm not saying there are right answers to these questions. I'm only saying that they're worthy of consideration, especially when dealing with shadow material.

Regarding the killer's work, I'll say this: I have no plans on reading it. Writing is not only about words; it has everything to do with energy. Even as I write this entry, I'm conveying meaning on a variety of different levels. The best writers are conscious of these levels and can work within them. The rest still work with it, but they usually end up exposing or sabotaging themselves. Sort of like a subliminal message of sorts.

A well-known serial killer could write a happy song, and I'd still be creeped out. I suspect that you'd be weirded out as well. You may not know why, but you'd feel it anyway.

So while his work might've been disturbing, I'm willing to bet that people picked up on the subliminal stuff. A happy kid could've written a violent story, and no one would've thought a whole lot about it, other than "Gee, I wonder where that came from."

It's not the topic, it's about energy and intention. Unfortunately, we don't work within a subtle culture. Everything is literal. It makes me wonder how many other writers will now be castigated for choosing unpleasant topics. Quite a few, I bet.

On Theater, Class and the Playwright

I don't want to leave a mega-long comment over at Parabasis, so I'll take up the laptop on this topic again here at Gasp. There are a slew of strings attached to the issue of class and theater, but I'll try not to ramble too much.

As far as I can see right now, self-producing is the only way to go. Because I've never really had the funds to do it, I don't exactly know how. I'm fairly certain once I worked it out, I could be good at it. The problem is when you don't come from money, don't have money, then working with money in that way is a daunting challenge.

What would you do if you won $20,000? Pay off your student loans or produce your play? Take care of your survival needs or promote your work? It's a tough decision, and it makes me wonder what people from various financial backgrounds would say.

(On a side note, part of my problem with spending that money on theater is the intangibility of it. I could spend money on publishing a book because its a physical object. Theater is purely experiential, and with my background, it appears harder to justify spending that money. Maybe that's just my hangup though.)

I don't think grant money is the answer, at least in terms of how grants are given these days. As I said before, I didn't wait for grants to research and write my play about 1968. Generally speaking, grant money appears to go to those playwrights who are already institutionally accepted. It seems that once playwrights become institutionally accepted, then money is readily available. If you don't have institutional backing, then grant money isn't available.

It's good for those playwrights who are institutionally accepted to step back and ask themselves how they gained that acceptance. At what cost did they arrive at that acceptance? Does being an institutionally accepted playwright make one a better writer? Obviously, institutional acceptance helps this financial issue.

Several people have mentioned that coming from a moneyed background provides advantages, such as time. There's even been a comment about writers from upper class backgrounds, as if brilliance and money are tied together. It's not just a working class ethic to believe that hard work pays off. Female writers throughout history have had to balance family, housework, and children while working on their novels and plays. Time and money do not equal brilliance. Neither does public exposure, for that matter. It's a false premise.

I believe it's important during this discussion to be cautious about not blaming the poor, as our society has a tendency to do. Poor people are constantly told, through a variety of means, that it's their fault that they aren't rolling in the dough. The worse slap in the face is being told that there is something morally wrong with them. Good writers come from all backgrounds. Where there's a will, there's a way.

There's a sense of entitlement with our generation. In poorer countries, theater is done without costumes. It's done without a stage or grants or anything. It only requires people. That's it. People. Actors and audiences.

I've also noticed that the theatrical blogosphere is preoccupied with a certain kind of theater - urban, smart, directed to a certain audience. The fact is that other audiences for theater exist. There's community theater, theaters in churches, smaller professional theater, regional theater, colleges, among other places. These places attract a variety of people. I've even heard that writers can make significant money in those venues. There are hotbeds of community theater throughout the country. These people take their theater very seriously. And they're good at what they do.

I talked a while back about how playwrights outside of NYC can dedicate themselves to the local scene. Every state has a local scene, and like missionaries, theater people have a responsibility to spread the art. There's no reason why the public can't be more involved with theater. Of course, it would require all of us to give up our elitism...

In terms of NYC theater, I have no answers. I'm no longer a part of that scene, and I'm relieved. I don't have a whole lot in common with that world, personally, and if people with trust funds can make it work for them, all the more power to them.

An immediate solution is, of course, to talk about it. In that way, Isaac is to be commended for observing this issue and bringing it up. It's a challenge, and requires plenty of self-examination. That isn't an easy thing to do.

Book Review: Lost City Radio

Let's try this again. My review of Daniel Alarcon's book, "Lost City Radio," was on newstands Sunday in The Birmingham News. Here's the online link.

Book Review

My review of Daniel Alarcon's book, "Lost City Radio" is in today's Birmingham News.

It's Alabama's largest newspaper. Those of you north of Montgomery can find it everywhere. But you know that already.

Check back this afternoon for the free link.

Oh, and by the way Christian friends... Happy Easter.

On Blogger Nights

I like the discussion going on over at Parabasis right now on Blogger Nights. The conversation is spurred by the Time Out NY article, which claims that there are some blogs out there that are just paid advertisements.

First of all, the article does beg the question: Who are the nefarious bloggers gettting paid to write good notices about shows? I think someone over at TONY needs to respond or retract. It's fine to recommend good blogs, but not at the expense of others. I'm not saying it isn't happening, but the way it's written is just, well... not good.

Secondly, reviewers don't pay to review material. Theater reviewers don't pay to see shows, book reviewers don't pay for books to review. (Generally speaking, of course. Some low-budget outfits won't reimburse a book purchase because there's no budget for it.)

I don't see anything wrong with Blogger Nights, even if bloggers get in for free. There's no need to apologize for it, either. It's how reviewing is done.

There absolutely needs to be a variety of voices when it comes to theater criticism, especially in New York. Theater in NYC is hindered by a lack of diversity.

The main problem, as I see it, is that there's no intermediary or neutral third party for transactions between bloggers and producers. History has demonstrated that there are many ways that reviewing can go awry. Literary feuds have been started because a perceived "enemy" was asked by an unknowing paper to review a book. (Don't ask me which one right now. It's 7 am on a Saturday morning and I'm half-awake.)

The lack of a neutral third party leaves the door open for appearances of impropriety. We all know how small the theater world is in NY. Everyone knows everyone else, pretty much, especially in the downtown scene. Still, integrity is important when it comes to standard reviewing. If "blogger reviewing" (ick, a new term must be coined) is to gain strength, this issue must be addressed.

I don't think that those bloggers connected by a third party publication (either by employment or contract) are affected by this issue. It's the rest you have to worry about. As my earlier entry indicated, publicists and producers are actively looking for a way to make blogging work for them. Something to think about...

Remember, in journalism its the appearance of impropriety that matters most. It doesn't matter if nothing untoward actually happened. If blogging is to be taken seriously, standards have to be created and applied.

Do I need to make disclosure statements?

a) Yes, I attended one of the early blogger nights for First Your Born which Issac directed. It was the first time I met George, Mac, Dan and Isaac. Lots of fun, paid for my ticket though. (Does someone owe me money? Kidding.)

b) Yes, I used to be a part of that scene. I'm no longer a part of that scene. Wish everyone well, but I like my current life. Don't miss the NYC lifestyle. I'm not jealous of those living there, but I do miss Friday evenings in the Village on occasion.

c) Yes, I review... books, not plays. I have written/am writing/will write reviews for publications.

d) If you've gotten this far in my disclosure statement then you really are a stickler, aren't you?

Cracking without Breaking

Of course, you can't get a college degree... But if you'd like to study for life enrichment, these colleges have open courseware: Keio, Kyoto, MIT, John Hopkins, Osaka, Toyko, Utah State, Waseda, Notre Dame, and Tufts.

By the way, have you ever been to a chiropractor? I had my first experience with one this week. Not sure why my back pain started... Maybe it was because I got hit by a car in 2005, stress, who the hell knows why.

For the most part, its been a good experience. Except that I think its mighty odd that bones can crack that loud without breaking. Seems sort of... unnatural. But that's just my opinion.

For All the Writers Out There

I feel *clean* after finishing a writing project. That's the best word for it. Clean.

Though I wouldn't call the writing a purge. I don't know what I'd call it.

So I ask you: What's the feeling you get after finishing a writing project? Is it a clean feeling? Peaceful? Anxious?

Apropos of Nothing

I have deadline issues. I've got a whole set of teeth to grind, and a load of stuff to write. Here's a few thoughts, apropos of nothing.

• The retro-ness of this kills me. I don't suppose this is the same woman who got Michael Jackson pregnant. Heh.

• Much to my chagrine, I don't have an ERA NOW button. Sure wish I did though, as this will certainly drive the value of those buttons up.

• A year in Austin has spoiled me in one respect: Having the ability to spend almost every Saturday morning at the Whole Foods flagship store. Organic scrambled eggs... Yum. They recently opened a Whole Foods here in Alabama, and while it's very good, it's not the same. No raspberry white chocolate scones, for instance, and no humus wraps. But I'm still grateful for what they do have... Just wish it was a little more (like their flagship store.)

• Buying the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal is fast becoming a Friday morning ritual. Throwing them out, largely unread, has become my Sunday night ritual.

  (Though I did read Teachout's review of Joan Didion's play. If I was in New York right now, I'd love to see it for two reasons. A) I love Joan Didion, and B) I'd love to know how they externalized deeply introspective prose. If anyone in NYC is going to see this play, please email me. Thanks.)

• While in South Carolina last November, I got hooked on Flip This House. My fascination, I think, had to do with the Charleston people featured on the show. They seemed like fun, positive real estate people. Considering it wasn't a fun positive period in my life, that show helped cheer me up a little. Anyway, those fun people had some kind of legal problem with A&E and now, they are on TLC. "A Homerun for Trademark" was on this past weekend, which served as an introduction to the group. Their show, "The Real Deal," will begin this month. I'm looking forward to it.

• Jethro, that photo hound, sent me this link last week. Very cool.

Have a good Monday.