And the question remains the same: Why couldn’t I accept my circumstance and make the most of the situation? I think that even then, I had a sense of higher purpose. That my life was not meant to be spent behind bars, and that anytime not spent actively pursuing this goal was time wasted. It seems silly to project these thoughts into the mind a child who can barely walk, but I suspect that feeling is the same I feel today.

This feeling calls me to sacrifice happiness for purpose. For something to give life meaning. A passion that I must devote my life to. And until I find whatever it is I seek, nothing else has any importance. Furthermore, I have the idea that once I’ve discovered this thing, everything will have been worth it, and my entire life leading up to that point will make sense.

This sounds pretty fantastic, but as I was pondering this, I had to ask myself:
Why is this so important to me?

Certainty, singular purpose, a motivating passion, what purpose does this ultimate serve? And the answer came back like this:

If you know what your purpose is, you don’t have to worry about making a bad decision, or wasting time. Your life has complete security, and you never doubt yourself ever again, you never have to experience the emotional ebb and flow of despair and hope, because you’ll live in a state of permanent happiness.

And of course that’s when I realized I’ve been going after something that can’t possibly offer what I’m looking for. And I already know this. People who have millions are still insecure that they may someday be cut off from their wealth. People who are doing what they absolutely love are confronted by the constant doubt that they are doing the right thing. It is natural to look for purpose, meaning, a central unifying point to our lives. But just having focus does not make insecurity and doubt vanish. There is no certainty, no total security, because inevitably we die. This occurs whether we find our exact purpose in life or not.

So stop striving for everything to make complete sense. Find a way to live confidently in an insecure world.

The most we can do is move towards meaning — after all, what else is there — but we must always keep our minds open and our focus, soft. Most of all, even as we look to the future we must prevent ourselves from withdrawing from the world.

Be open. Play with the other kids. Because what gives our lives meaning is just as likely to be found there as anywhere else.

Probably it’s an unconscious homage to Hunter Thompson, a man who made his life a testament to craziness and spontaneous behavior. And I don’t entirely understand why he’s a role model. I appreciate his priorities, but there seems something vaguely desperate in his fantastic lifestyle.  As if he felt that life on it’s own wasn’t really all that great, and required fantasy and fiction to make it interesting; at least tolerable.

And in the same way, I feel like there is something false behind these 3 words.  Something idealized.  Fantasized.  Hollow.  Can one bet their existence upon hallucination, hedonism, and death?  Or is this missing the point?

I just watched Tropa De Elite and was deconstructing from a story perspective, trying to really get at the process for creating such a story.

Okay I’ll assume you haven’t seen Tropa De Elite, so I’ll just say it’s the kind of story with several different character’s whose paths intertwine, morphing the characters and arriving at a shocking conclusion.  It’s a great story to deconstruct, because it has such a powerful structure.  Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, it’s time to do my favorite thing in the world.  Hate on the story-gurus.

Robert McKee

First we have Robert McKee.  He would probably say, that first the author had to figure out what kind of story he wanted to tell.  In this case, a story about a man changing into a monster.  Next you have to fit it in a specific environment.  In this case, an elite police squad in Brazil.

It’s at this point that I call bullshit.  No one can write a story in this backasswards manner.  At least I can’t.  For example, why the hell would you want to tell a story about a man changing into a monster?  To amuse yourself?  To win an award?  Cause it certainly can’t be because you’re at all interested in that idea. It’s so generic, and has been done so many times before, there would be no purpose.  And why the hell would it occur to you to set in Brazil?? That’s just random.

But lets assume that’s the case.  Well it still doesn’t make sense, because it doesn’t provide a good motivation for creating the story the way it is.  There is no way an author sat down to tell a story about a man changing into a monster and ended up with this complex narrative, set in such a dynamic backdrop, and involving so many interesting characters.  They’re just unnecessary.  If this is how stories really are made, then the really good films would be 15 minutes long, and anything that reached an hour would be full of unnecessary boring ass shit!  Okay I’m done here.  Next!

Syd Field

Next we have Syd Field, who seems to believe that the point of a screenplay is the end.  The ending is what decides everything that comes before it, and without it, all of the buildup means nothing. To write a screenplay in this way, you’d have to start at the end, and add on elements until you reached the beginning.

Again this is crap.  I’d say anyone who really knows their ending, or thinks it is the whole point of the story, is going to write the most boring, contrived screenplay ever, and the only point of any scene will be to lead the audience to the next scene and the next and the next, until they get to the final scene, in which they are so shocked by the beautiful ending that they choke on their popcorn and die of euphoria and kernel asphyxiation.  Writing this way would never cause someone to create the nuanced twists and turns of Tropa De Elite.  After all, you’re just trying to get to the end right?

An Alternative

So what then?  Well, now allow me to unveil my ultimate theory on story creation.  I used to believe writing was all about the emotional moment, but in that case films would simply be a series of vignettes, every scene trying to capture something new.  But this doesn’t necessitate a plot line of any kind.  So here is my revised theory:

First you find a world that interests you, then you find what makes that world unique, then you explore emotional moments that bring out the contradictions and contrasts of the world you’re exploring. From this perspective, the creative choices in Tropa De Elite start to make sense.  The authors got deep into their subject matter, found out what made it unique, and pinned down that struggle into a single plot line punctuated by emotional moments between characters on the outskirts of that world.

The meaning of the story is discovered in the environment, not before the environment is created.  The ending is simply the culmination of the events, and the completion of the intertwining of events.  It allows us to see everything that has happened in perspective, to really get our hands around the thing, but it is not the whole point.

I’m getting really worked up here.  I should really write a screenplay.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/view/

Okay here’s my thoughts:

On Drone Attacks

I had never thought about the people who pilot the drones in Pakistan.  That is seriously fucked up.  And while it’s great that we’re developing technologies that prevent our people from getting killed, I can’t see the end result as anything good.  In conventional warfare these would be great tools, but we’re using them for, going into neighborhoods half a world a way, spying on and killing the residents, it’s going to accomplish the opposite effect we’re looking for.  Great, we can precisely target a single terrorist and take them out without endangering a single American.  But we are endangering all the civilians in those areas, and all at the push of a button.  By some guy in a cubical in Las Vegas.  I imagine how I’d feel if that happened here.  If another nation decided to enforce it’s law in my country, and they didn’t even have to send people to do it.  There’s not even anyone to complain to, or to look in the eye, to plead with, to fight.  Where does all that helplessness get directed?  Do you just go about your day?  Or do you feel outrage, frustration, and anger?  Isn’t this exactly the opposite reaction we want?

On Video Games as Social Experiences

I dropped my video game addiction before World of Warcraft, but I still remember the pattern.  Inches from the screen, not blinking, not smiling, not flinching.  No emotion, just instincts, flicks of the wrist, and short sighs and stretches every death.  Night time is a clever illusion.  From around 9pm – 4am the sky never changes, so when the first bit of sun comes up, and that sickening feeling of “oh my god I am so tired and I spent the whole night playing games” hits, it’s already too late.  In my memory the social games were the worst.  Games where you are just running around killing people can only keep you going for so long, but if a game actually encourages you to forge friendships with your pixelated kill-buddies?  Forget it.  Social gaming is to death match as crack is to PBR.  That’s how I have always seen it.  However, this video talks about Second Life and World of Warcraft as if there is something redeeming to spending 18 hours a week of your life building relationships with people in an imaginary world.  I’m not so sure.  That sounds like giving up on First Life.  Maybe if I was completely locked down with a corporate job that I knew I’d be at for the next 30 years of my life I might allow myself to get that involved with a game again.  Surely that beats a crack addiction.  But from where I’m sitting, anything is better than a virtual experience.  And you’re kidding yourself if you think a conversation online is the same as in person.  It’s the same thing as unmanned drone warfare.  Where there is no human contact there is no risk and there is nothing human to be communicated.  And speaking of which, Second Life is a sloppy mess of culture placed in a blender and melted to a thick brown ooze.  That’s the problem with these virtual communities, there is no restriction on what can be built, so there is no identity, no culture, no roots.  People flit around between personalities and loyalties.  After all, you can be whoever you want, nothing is at stake, no one will ever confront you.  These are thin, superficial interactions, in a fantasy land of no correlation to the real world.  It has no meaning.  And there is no amount of time that’s worth spending on something meaningless.

On Focus

One thing I might possibly be able to attribute to our world of constant distraction is my lack of focus.  The internet allows me to switch up my focus so often that I don’t even have time to realize I’m not actually getting anywhere.  The instinct of instant gratification causes my brain to shoot off in all directions as soon it has the slightest whim.  Now the question is, given the option of instant gratification, or restricted possibilities, what being would choose the latter?  No one.  Technology has given us, for the first time, this choice.  And we can use it to be eternally distracted by possibilities, or to sit down and focus our selves on the things that really matter.  However I think we are all at a disadvantage, because by nature we’ve been drawn to distraction.  By now it’s been conditioned in us.  For myself, any time I have an idle moment, I find my fingers directing me to nytimes.com, or digg.com.  The real joke is that I hate the articles at digg.com, and I don’t read anything but headlines from nytimes.com.  This must be what the opposite of Buddism is.  Instead of being absorbed in a moment of conscious silence, we are pulled into a constant stream of distraction.  I’m not sure my western brain can even take meditation.  How am I supposed to check my gmail when I’m focusing exclusively on my breath?  What?  Thats the point??  What the hell is that supposed to mean??

Stories work the same way. While it is important to have characters with dramatic need whom give the story focus and interest, do not shy from creating characters whose inclinations which aren’t as strong. These are the characters who can provide unexpected turns in a story which otherwise might be too obvious.

“THEY’LL NEVER TAKE… OUR FREEDOM!!!”

What follows is a brutal battle that destroys your homeland, results in countless casualties but you manage to eek out a victory that causes the enemy to retreat. Horray! Victory is ours! Roll credits.

Oh my god, shut the fuck up. It’s modern conventional warfare.  There is no way you can win against a superior force in this way. Let’s assume that the battle that unfolded in Avatar is realistic (it’s not. If it was they’d have the capability of dropping a bomb from higher than 50 feet off the ground, and it would be a real bomb not a bunch of UPS packages but whatever), what’s the logical next step that would occur here? You caused this army to retreat, using a surprise attack and a lot of luck. And where have they retreated to? Their homes, which you have absolutely no ability to threaten. So what happens next?

Retaliation!

The occupying force was motivated by financial incentives which exist in the resources located in your home. Violence would only work if the conflict costs more than the profit to be made from it. It wouldn’t be too costly. They wouldn’t even need troops, just missiles and bombs. And you’ve just slaughtered thousands of troops, providing easy propaganda for them to avoid any public relations issues. Their hands are completely untied. Prepare for annihilation.

From the Navi perspective violence just isn’t practical. Let’s reexamine their goals:

They want to protect their land, nature, and their people. By undertaking violent action, they have lost a significant number of their own, and had their most sacred lands permanently destroyed or damaged by the invading force. This could have all been avoided.

So am I saying they should just roll over and let their land be taken? Absolutely, if they’re concerned with protecting their own interests. But instead, Jake Sully, douche bag that he is, gives a rousing speech which encourages them to instead seek revenge and punishment rather than a positive end. As a result, their land is destroyed further, via a completely avoidable attack on their true sacred land. Land which only becomes a threat to the invading force after it is used as a staging ground for a retaliatory act.

Finally they achieve their goal of making the enemy retreat as a result of heavy casualties. Which will later on result in further devastating attacks on their land and people. The inevitable result being that there will be nothing left worth defending, and the Navi will have their priorities reduced to merely surviving.
The end.

Now this isn’t really a critique of Avatar, it’s a film, it’s not trying to be completely realistic, it’s just presenting the audience with a graspable, conventional plot. What’s fascinating is how easily our culture eats up a story which basically says, “Violence works, so long as you’re passionate enough about your cause.”

It’s pretty obvious to me that in this scenario, violence most certainly does not work. It provides revenge and punishment, but it doesn’t serve the goals of the Na’vi, and it’s just not effective.

So, what would work?

1 • Understand the enemy

2 • Avoid creating an opportunity for the enemy

3 • Avoid unnecessary loss.

4 • Apply pressure.

Is your life set up around the things you want?
If not then you’re not trying, just wishing.

2) You don’t get to tell yourself what you want

You get to listen.
Sure you could ignore it, but what else is there?

3) None of these are goals: independence, strength, confidence, money, time

The best sounding goals are actually a means to an ends.

4) You know what you’re going to do months in advance you just don’t know it yet

Get better at recognizing what’s next.

5) If you’re going to be your own boss, you better enjoy money making

Because you’re probably going to be getting simpler work with a lower quality standard than if you worked with a group of people. Is a paycheck your main motivator? If not, you’re probably not going to make a lot.

6) I’d rather not have an answer to the question, “Where do you see yourself in 5 years?”

7) Getting a job through your college is not the same as getting a job in the real world

You don’t automatically get an interview and there’s not a few hundred listings to go through.  Oh yeah and internships don’t pay.

8) You can survive longer than you think you can

9) Most expensive things are really traps from people trying to get rid of that empty feeling

Being broke forces you to look for experiences that are worthwhile despite not being priced accordingly.

10) Go with your gut. If it’s wrong you can blame it. If it’s right you don’t have any excuse.

And unlike your brain, it will learn.
And unlike your brain, it doesn’t really care what everyone else is doing.

11) Working from home is not glamorous it’s isolating

12) Your relationships with people are your biggest obstacle in changing your life

But they’re super important. And it’ll hurt every time.

13) The only way you can really learn anything is by experiencing it

Others’ experiences can show you patterns, so you might recognize things in the early stages of them happening, this can be invaluable, but you still have to learn through experience. And your lessons will be your own.

Download Mp3

We met up because he was new to Philly, looking for a job in video production. At that time I wasn’t in much of a position to help him- I had as tentative a grasp on my own survival as you can have before slipping away and spiraling off the earth, but really he needed someone to
talk to.

As it turned out he had lived here before, years ago. He had gone to California in search of a new life.  Traveling, exploring, learning the world. The lines on his face and his hunched, timid demeanor gave me an idea of the lessons he had learned.

After a beer or two he confided: “One thing I learned from travel.. You can’t trust anyone.”

I nodded in sympathy, but sensed a disconnect.  I knew his lesson wasn’t true, but I understood why he might think it was. When you’re traveling, all of your relationships are temporary. And there can be no foundation of trust within such temporary circumstances.

I’ve heard stories of friends striking out on a journey across the country, only to end up hurting each other, betraying each other, and abandoning each other. They made it to California alone, or they just didn’t make it at all. Maybe that’s traveling, or maybe that’s just the kind of friends you make when your idea of a road trip begins with stealing a car.  Looking at Andy, I couldn’t tell which he was. A victim of the elements, or a degenerate.

In any case, he had come back to Philly, haunted by some ghost. A girl he had left behind. Or maybe she had left him. Or maybe they had never been really together. He didn’t say, but clearly some memory of her had brought him back here.

And now he had become a ghost. I imagined him wandering the streets- filled with regret, desperation, guilt.  Searching for whatever it was he lost.

After that meeting I never saw him again. There was no real connection. Nothing I could do to help him, but also I didn’t want to get sucked into his world.

So there must be a reason that Andy popped into my head today.  As I look into the future, I can not think of a thing more frightening than becoming a ghost in my own past.

I’m haunted by Andy’s story. Will I become like him someday?

I’ve thought about it, and here’s what I’ve decided:  Ghosts aren’t here to warn us of the future. They’re here to focus us on what is important.  You can’t worry about regret. You’ll regret things or you won’t.  But either way, if what you’re going after is worth it, these consequence
don’t matter.

I wonder what Andy would think of this…  I wonder if things worked out.