Who wha ... wtf!
What's this then?!? I'm away for a few days and the blog is being declared permanently moribund! What is this invertebrate inactivity!!!
I must say I've been watching the whole sludge match with mild interest and annoyance, but I think it's escalated to a ridiculous level and it's time to set some things straight. (Thank heaven the most idiotic parts have been on e-mail!) I don't even know where to begin and how to deal with this efficiently, it seems an immense waste of effort - but this issue is a large turd that one has to pick up bare handed and there's no clean way to do it. And I say we do this now because this shit really stinks...
I think we need to SEPARATE the multiple processes that are going on here. I find Vijay's comments (on Vivek's blog and subsequently on e-mail) hugely problematic because they make certain claims so strongly as to appear the voicing of a consensus. At several points I felt issues were being mixed, personal angst appeared as public injury and private conclusions were getting enmeshed with popular sentiment. I was also revolted by the tone consistently and found myself disgusted and put-off. Tragically, I chose to distance myself. At the same time, I cannot allow the trivialisation of something which I am sentimentally attached to - this space, memories of the process and the people I've met. Forgive me if I am harsh and pardon me if I am sentimental, but I will defend what I love as best as I can, and act as appropriately as I can to clarify the issues.
1. Everyone has had a different process - one experience is not the overall sentiment. Each of us has had our own unique challenges I suppose. It would help to figure out what went wrong and route those suggestions where they can be implemented. Perhaps the part of the process where the script finds a home with a director was the bumpiest part of the journey? Or the integration of the writer into the rehearsal process was not well handled? Or that the quality of the feedback on drafts left a lot to be desired in terms of quality and handling? No point slobbering behind gratitude, no point snarling rabidly - voice it.
2. Reactions to a review have no connection to the larger writing process. I think that the whole review fiasco was quite absurd. But it can't be linked to the failings of the workshop process. To make a connection between a review and the intricasies of an entire years worth of work is as irresponsible as junking the whole thing on the basis of one problematic interaction. The fact that it was done in a public space makes it doubly revolting.
3. One person's interactions with the organisers have no connection to the larger workshop process. This is the ickiest part and I refuse to engage with this. Wash your dirty laundry elsewhere please. Im the least interested in "who said what to whom and then you know what he said" - it stinks. I don't care what it is, what's true, what's speculation, I don't want to hear it in a public space. It makes me feel dirty and depressed.
4. Parading a personal slight as a larger and significant process is damaging and trivialising. I find the "colonial introject" diatribe is offensive; and the example provided to substantiate is as petty in content as the sentiment behind it. "Something we Indians do very well." - is the most alarming generalisation I've heard... If there's a problem of a particular scale that perhaps has arisen out of other macro-issues, address the issue directly. Linking it to the larger discourse makes the problem seem a lot bigger than it really is. And as a consequence makes the discourse seem petty and trivial. (I won't even start, on how something as practical as the mismanagement of a production gets positioned as a great subversion and malignment of feminist discourse.)
I plead that we all identify problem areas we have had, and address those problems appropriately. In this case, inaction is as impotent as malevolent anger. Well that's it. I've wasted enough time and effort on this.
Cheerio.
I must say I've been watching the whole sludge match with mild interest and annoyance, but I think it's escalated to a ridiculous level and it's time to set some things straight. (Thank heaven the most idiotic parts have been on e-mail!) I don't even know where to begin and how to deal with this efficiently, it seems an immense waste of effort - but this issue is a large turd that one has to pick up bare handed and there's no clean way to do it. And I say we do this now because this shit really stinks...
I think we need to SEPARATE the multiple processes that are going on here. I find Vijay's comments (on Vivek's blog and subsequently on e-mail) hugely problematic because they make certain claims so strongly as to appear the voicing of a consensus. At several points I felt issues were being mixed, personal angst appeared as public injury and private conclusions were getting enmeshed with popular sentiment. I was also revolted by the tone consistently and found myself disgusted and put-off. Tragically, I chose to distance myself. At the same time, I cannot allow the trivialisation of something which I am sentimentally attached to - this space, memories of the process and the people I've met. Forgive me if I am harsh and pardon me if I am sentimental, but I will defend what I love as best as I can, and act as appropriately as I can to clarify the issues.
1. Everyone has had a different process - one experience is not the overall sentiment. Each of us has had our own unique challenges I suppose. It would help to figure out what went wrong and route those suggestions where they can be implemented. Perhaps the part of the process where the script finds a home with a director was the bumpiest part of the journey? Or the integration of the writer into the rehearsal process was not well handled? Or that the quality of the feedback on drafts left a lot to be desired in terms of quality and handling? No point slobbering behind gratitude, no point snarling rabidly - voice it.
2. Reactions to a review have no connection to the larger writing process. I think that the whole review fiasco was quite absurd. But it can't be linked to the failings of the workshop process. To make a connection between a review and the intricasies of an entire years worth of work is as irresponsible as junking the whole thing on the basis of one problematic interaction. The fact that it was done in a public space makes it doubly revolting.
3. One person's interactions with the organisers have no connection to the larger workshop process. This is the ickiest part and I refuse to engage with this. Wash your dirty laundry elsewhere please. Im the least interested in "who said what to whom and then you know what he said" - it stinks. I don't care what it is, what's true, what's speculation, I don't want to hear it in a public space. It makes me feel dirty and depressed.
4. Parading a personal slight as a larger and significant process is damaging and trivialising. I find the "colonial introject" diatribe is offensive; and the example provided to substantiate is as petty in content as the sentiment behind it. "Something we Indians do very well." - is the most alarming generalisation I've heard... If there's a problem of a particular scale that perhaps has arisen out of other macro-issues, address the issue directly. Linking it to the larger discourse makes the problem seem a lot bigger than it really is. And as a consequence makes the discourse seem petty and trivial. (I won't even start, on how something as practical as the mismanagement of a production gets positioned as a great subversion and malignment of feminist discourse.)
I plead that we all identify problem areas we have had, and address those problems appropriately. In this case, inaction is as impotent as malevolent anger. Well that's it. I've wasted enough time and effort on this.
Cheerio.
Labels: a collosal waste of time
posted by ramganeshk at 8:06 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home