More Light Entertainment

This morning NPR mentioned that Broadway had a good financial year thanks mainly to revivals. The two shows most responsible for bringing in the cash were revivals of West Side Story and Hair. The reporter commented that perhaps theatre-goers were drawn to revivals because they were longing for a simpler time.

My immediate reaction was, "Simpler time, my Aunt Bessie!" Though born after the periods depicted in these two musicals, I have a hard time of thinking of either - especially Hair - as being set in a simpler time. Hair is set under the looming mountain of the Vietnam War, complete with draft card burnings. The story, however, is optimistic and in that sense the show does have a simpler, carefree vibe. West Side Story strikes me as the opposite. It takes place in what might be considered a simpler time, the 1950s. The Cold War and bomb drills aside, Donna Reed, in thought and deed, dominated the domestic front. In this 'simpler' time we get a dark story of teenage alienation and violence. Both musicals are fantasies, there's the notable lack of parents in West Side Story. Hair has "The Age of Aquarius" and I think that sums it up as far as fantasies go.

But I think the NPR commentator was on to something, despite my disagreement that at the highest level these musicals are not about a simpler time. Revivals do remind us of a simpler time: the first time we saw a show. A time which probably was not as fraught with worries as today is.

Discussion Questions - Islam & The Crisis of Globalization

I think one of the signs of becoming a suburbanite is joining a book group. I have a few friends in NYC who belong to book groups, but their numbers are not near the percentage of my suburban acquaintances who are book groupies.

I joined my alumnae book group - which actually discusses complex literature, instead of reading bestsellers and drinking copious amounts of chardonnay (though chardonnay is usually available and they all seem to bake excellent cookies).

Last month we read Journey into Islam: The Crisis of Globalization by Akbar Ahmed. I volunteered to prepare the discussion for this light read. Since I did the work, I figured I'd share these questions with the blogosphere; plus a link to the author's bio.

I'm still not sure if I can recommend this book as a great read, but it is well written and provides a view into a world which many Americans know very little about - and, I agree with Akbar's argument, that they need to know more about.

If you've read the book, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

Discussion Questions:

Journey into Islam

1. Ahmed structures his explanation of the Muslim worldview by exploring 3 Muslim models for thinking: Ajmer, Deoband, and Aligarh (page 33). As you read Journey into Islam, did you feel these models were effective categories?

2. Ahmed refers to E .M. Forster’s A Passage to India as the book most non-Muslims have read that explores the Muslim world. Can anyone who may have read A Passage to India recently comment on any connections they see between Journey into Islam and the novel?

3. What is Ahmed’s definition of globalization? Do you agree?

4. Ahmed argues against looking at the Muslim world as a monolith. Did you think he had a broad enough sample of people that he spoke to in his travels? Or were his conversations too focused on Muslims involved in politics or education? In light of the differences Ahmed reveals in the way Muslims approach the world, do you agree with his assessment of how to build bridges between Muslim and non-Muslim societies?

5. What did you think of the narrative tone of this work/the author’s narrative voice?

6. What did you see as Ahmed’s own biases (if any)?

7. One of the many interesting areas Ahmed explores is Tribalism. What did you think of his distinctions between Islamic tradition and tribal custom? Also, what did you think about how internal politics between the Pakistani government and the tribal leaders played out on the national scene (e.g. how the reasons for sending the military to tribal areas was conveyed to the US and world media)?

8. Ahmed talks a lot about the treatment of woman, but less about their role in moving the dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims forward. I found it interesting in the chapter on “Who is defining Islam” the he cited examples of several Muslim women who are trying to create change (p 143-4) but have a lack of legitimacy in their own communities and are therefore not good spokespeople. What did you think of his assessment?

9. Did the involvement of Ahmed’s students in his research influence the book/illuminate Muslim culture? How?

Moving Forward – Journeying Beyond the Book

1. Ahmed talks about changes that occur in how we approach others and changes within ourselves. What changes did you see in the author and the people he met throughout the book? What changes, if any, did you see in yourself as you read?

2. Were you convinced by Ahmed’s proposals on how Muslims and non-Muslims should proceed to build relationships?

3. One goal of this book is to create understanding by expanding the number of people who are knowledgeable about Islam and the Muslim world. How likely are you to recommend this book to someone? Why?

4. I don’t want to discuss politics or take us outside of the book, but since the book is political, therefore I think it appropriate to ask – do you believe Obama’s leadership style is in alignment with Ahmed’s proposal for talking with the Muslim world? Why or why not?

Akbar Ahmed bio

Giving and receiving

One topic I plan for this blog to address is philanthropy. Writing, like philanthropy, is something that is frequently becomes an "I'll do it later" task. However, I don't want to talk about procrastination now, but rather giving without reciprocity.

Since I'm interested in both writing and philanthropy, I was really impressed by this article from Glimmer Train which discusses the indirect benefits gained from participating in a writers group (critiquing the work of others making us better writers), as opposed to the direct benefits (getting concrete pointers on what is/is not working in our writing). It's a great example of how contributing to something makes us better and how the philanthropic spirit can be incorporated into different parts of our life. Practically speaking, it's also a good reason not to get as frustrated with the other members of your writers group.

Hearing Voices

It's become cliched to say that good writers are also voracious readers. It's also true. But a side-effect of reading a lot of one writer's work is you may start hearing that writer's voice off of the page. I always find it interesting when another writer has a distinct enough voice that my writing, or thoughts, take on that writer's voice. I've been reading Jane Espenson's blog - which is fantastic if you're interested in screenwriting or just writing tips in general. She's not updating it any more but if you, like me, are coming late to her party the archives make for good reading.

Anyhow, on a friend's recommendation I've been reading Jane's blog. Jane has a clear, comedic voice and always ends her entries with a report on what she had for lunch. Yesterday, making my own lunch I found myself thinking "Lunch: Udon soup and hummus with tomatoes. Cross cultural goodness." And then thinking, "That's clearly Jane Espenson in my head!" Not just the lunch report, but the style of the commentary was Jane's.

Is this a bad thing? Not unless Jane wakes up and finds she is no longer in her head and is permanently in mine. One of the best writing teachers I had explained it well. I had been reading a whole bunch of Marguerite Duras plays and then found that the scenes I was writing for playwrighting class all had a Duras-style disembodied voices. Clearly derivative! Clearly not my voice! (Hey, there's Jane again in those short exclamations.) But the prof suggested going with it, and for me to explore how by using the convention I either would or would not make it my own.

So those voices in your head, they can be a good thing.

Lunch: BBQ chicken and homemade cole slaw with red wine vinegar and without mayo. I dislike mayo. (Thanks to Ms. Espenson.)

The Bonus Problem

Everyone is screaming about bonuses. I don't need to tell you that a lot of people (myself included) are livid that companies receiving bailout funds are giving bonuses. Meanwhile on the opinion pages of newspapers and periodicals - as well as in legislative sessions - some business experts are decrying the fact that if bonuses are eliminated the top workers will go to other companies and they will lose their talent.

This, my friends, is the same kind of misplaced, 'what's in it for me' thinking that has brought us to this fun economic time.

There are two issues here. First, what is a bonus? And second, how should a company value its employees and determine whether they should be retained?

A bonus is:
1) something given or paid over and above what is due.
2) a sum or money granted to given to an employee, a returned solider, etc., in addition to regular pay, usually in appreciation for work done, length of service, accumulated favors, etc.
Source: Dictionary.com

By it's very nature a bonus is not a guarantee. If it's guaranteed by your contract, as far as I'm concerned, it's not a bonus. This works both ways -- employers shouldn't guarantee a bonus and employees should not budget based on their bonus. When I lived in NY, I knew Wall Streeters who counted on their bonus to pay their bills. Counting chickens before they've hatched is what got us into this whole mess.

In most industries a 5-10% bonus is very good - something is wrong with the system when your bonus is multiple times your salary. If the jobs that traditionally receive these mega-bonuses are worth big bucks, then then their base salary should reflect it. But the key issue here is a bonus is optional and not a right.

Second, you have an argument that talent will go elsewhere if they do not receive a bonus. First of all, there are plenty of talented people who work in industries that do not give bonuses. They stay in their jobs for a multitude of reasons, so crystallizing this argument down to 'bonus = retention' is fallacious.

In addition, when you set up a tier of workers as your stars and deem them irreplaceable you are putting your company at risk. You are setting up a system to cater to those stars rather than having your employees focus on being cohesive and working to serve the best interests of the company. This is not to say that every worker functions on the same level and that stand-outs should not be recognized. But when there's a system that rewards segments of a company that made money, even if the overall company is losing money, it begs the question - while that part of the company was making money were they doing it to the determinant of another segment? If you are putting all your eggs in the basket of your "star performers" are you creating a company with a replicable business model for consistent success? Or are you taking a short cut that doesn't include the strategy and systems that will support long term corporate growth? I'm a big believer that bonuses should be based on company performance, not individual performance.

But it comes down to this . . .
If you have a starving family and someone gives you $5, you don't give $1 to your kid who made money last year on his paper route, even though it allowed the family to pay some of its bills over that year. You spend the money on food and farming so you have a future.

This year, these mega-bonuses starve the economy. The money needs to go to the future. The hard truth is if these companies fail, the bonus problem will be solved permanently.

Brother Can You Spare a Dime

So Mr. Dime & I went out to dinner and the theater on Saturday night. This is the first time we have gone to the theater in the midwestern city we recently moved to and we discovered that our dining options are much more limited than in The City that Never Sleeps.

We wound up at a swanky, over-priced place because of a lack of planning ahead and a desire not to walk more than 1/2 mile. The restaurant had as its only option a "tasting menu" that was guaranteed to have no means of inexpensive escape. Meanwhile, the music system is playing covers of old 1930s songs. When "Brother Can You Spare a Dime" came on all I could think was -- these people don't have a clue.

A Dime Among the Pennies

Way back in Middle School, my science teacher felt badly about always giving me a hard time because of my height. He was a nice guy and his teasing good-natured.

One day he gave me the following quote, typed up and then mounted on green construction paper:

Oliver Wendell Holmes once attended a meeting in which he was the shortest man present. "Dr. Holmes," quipped a friend, "I should think you'd feel rather small among us big fellows." "I do," retorted Holmes, "I feel like a dime among a lot of pennies."

I had it laminated and still have it nearly twenty years later.