Longevity in Truth

We define ourselves to the rest of the world with our verbiage. I don't like Homeland Security. Too much power concentrated in one place, with as many personal protections removed as possible, to provide personal security. The irony in function is sadly ironic. The very name is just as disturbing to me. When I first heard it, I thought it was a joke in poor taste. It is much too close in meaning and implementation to the Fatherland for my comfort. "Valiant Path" is arrogant in it's assumption of a higher purpose and troubling in it's use as a marketing tool. Again it is much too close in it's obscuring intent to the way "Divine Wind" was used by Japan. And "Operation Iraqi Freedom?" To this point who enjoys more freedom in Iraq? I can't help but believe "Operation Iraqi Freedom" must be a hundred times more offensive or at least a hundred times more fatal to Iraqis than the idea of showing "God is Great" by demolishing the twin towers was to us. For me the tone of Homeland Security, Valiant Path, and Operation Iraqi Freedom define the character of our leaders.

What we say and how we say it is important. The example phrases I use above are all used to implement and cover up what I believe to be great evils perpetrated by small amoral men with exorbitant power. As time goes on this is becoming apparent to everyone, but the those people Lincoln mentioned, "...you can even fool some of the people all the time;..." Where does that leave those who live by deception? History will generally be unkind to them. All they can hope for is outpacing history. The trouble is the more power and wealth you garner by lying, the sooner it is likely to catch up with you. I believe our current leaders will be looked upon with a level of scorn and disgust that will set a new standard for corruption in U.S. history.

So, aside from my feelings about living under this regime what is the pertinence to me as an artist? I am trying my hand at writing, particularly playwriting. The misuse of the language and "truth" are quite extreme with regards to our current whitehouse. It has brought about short-term gains for them, and writing in a similar manner, though with more of an accepting and caring (liberal) bent would give me a similar boost in the short term. Is that something I can be satisfied with? Possibly, though probably not if I am able to think in those terms. On the other hand if I look to expose the undercurrents of both sides the conflict, my writing becomes fully realized, giving it a better shot at surviving me.

Being remembered forever is not my immediate goal. What a stilted and dry thing to strive for. Neither am I ego-less. I doubt anyone is. I want to live fully, and in doing so write fully. For me one feeds the other. Much like my day and night jobs feed each other. I hope that I can create something in which my doubts, certainties, and questions have a life that transcends the issue of the moment. Many claim Shakespeare didn't invent any new stories. So what?

Shakespeare's writing tends to state everything straight out, not much of the sub-text which we love and expect today. And who writes in iambic pentameter today without appearing to be a nerd or pretentious? So we have writing styles that are out of fashion and stories that are most probably unoriginal. Yet we still love his stories, whether they are done on stage in period or as a film taking place in today's world. His characters are real and we know the foibles, strengths, and failings of the protagonists and the antagonists. Their complexity makes the story complex. The complexity also makes for characters who are compelling, which in turn makes the story compelling.

I've not discovered anything new about Shakespeare, or anything that hasn't been tossed around for hundreds of years. I've just identified the aspect that hits me the most at this point in time. I ask myself why, and I think it is because I intuitively know that is what I need to think about the most right now as I write and rewrite my projects.