The Stage vs. The Pen

Angelo just asked me "Which do you prefer - acting or writing?"

My authoritative answer is this: Uhhhhh.....

I figured that this idea required further thought, so here is that further thought:

I love and hate them both.

Acting: I think part of what I like about acting so much is the chance to completely analyze every aspect of a really killer script. Maybe that's why I like doing Shakespeare so much. There's so damn much to work with. That said, it's completely nerve-wracking. I've been in plays since I was little and I always need to keep a copy of the script in the wings so I can remind myself what part I'm at. In recent years I've found myself to be feeling physically ill before each show. I hate getting to the theatre 2 hours early, getting dressed and then waiting for 1 1/2 hours for the show to start. I try to take my mind off it by reading or listening to music, but then I start to forget my lines. And after the show, I never know how to feel when I meet people. If they say I did a good job, I don't know what to say other than a stammered "Thank you" and then head for the door. And if I hear something bad about myself, it stings pretty badly. I know it's petty and small of me, but one of my great disappointments from King Lear was that I wasn't mentioned in the poorly written article in the paper. I shouldn't feel cheated by that, but I still do. I like the praise, but I don't know how to accept it. So there's that.

All that aside, it's exhilerating. I love the moment of "getting it" which happens mostly in rehearsal. I love the friendships which form. I love joking around with people in costume backstage just before you're supposed to go on. I love the fun. I love the work that goes into it. I guess that's why I'm a little steamed about not getting mentioned in the paper. I think I put a lot of effort into that part.

Writing: I finally started carrying a little book with me wherever I go so i can jot things down. I have no idea how many little story plans or moments are gone forever because I had nowhere to write them down. It's fun to write. But it's also frustrating. My biggest enemy is myself. I really need some sort of concrete deadline with real consequences if I don't get something produced by then.

Andrew's brain: You have to finish this story before Tuesday.

Andrew: Or what?

Andrew's brain: I'll be disappointed with you.

Andrew: Oh well. I'll just drown you out with tv.

Andrew's brain: Dang.

When I get something good, it's one of the better feelings I can have about myself. I gauge "good" by asking myself "Would I ever want to read that in real life?" and if the answer's "yes" then I keep going with it.

That's a bit of sore spot though. I can't seem to tell anyone in Sudbury that I'd like to write without them either getting a very concerned look on their face and saying "But you can't live on that, can you?" or getting a disgusted look on their face and saying "But you can't live on that, can you? It's very irritating. For example, in a recent jotting from the little book I carry around:

"How am I supposed to succeed when everyone tells me that I won't?"

I get the feeling that it's an uphill battle that doesn't need to be uphill. What I could really use is a published writer to show me the business side of it all. How do you get published? Who do I submit this stuff to? How did they make ends meet when they were just starting out? Chekhov used to publish a short story when he needed a quick spot of cash to pay a bill. What's the equivelent today? Reader's Digest? I'm not holding any illusions that I'm on a plane with Chekhov, but it makes me wonder... If there was the same emphasis placed on reading today as there was back then, would I be published already?

That said, it would be one of the greatest pleasures of my life to answer the question "What do you do for a living?" with "I'm a writer." I just hope people want to hear what I've got to say.