Reality television is after me

My response to the Dance Moms show on Lifetime:

Yes, I know no one else cares about this. It's just another stupid reality show trying to hitch a ride on the Real Housewives' star. But this time they've come after my profession. Much as I hate to give more publicity to these kinds of things, I've heard so many defenders of the show state, "That's the dance world! If you don't like it, don't participate!" Not true. Abby Lee Miller does not speak for all dance teachers. There's more to be gained from enrolling at a dance studio than tears and abuse.

The first thing to remember is that this is scripted entertainment. Scenarios are introduced by producers and all the people involved are under contract. What you see on your television is not reality, or, if it is reality, it's such a small sliver of the elephant that there's no point in even treating it as reality. I'm aware of this. Still, the show likes to pretend it's giving us insight into the mysterious and crazy world of dance. It doesn't let its viewers know the amount of scripting and scheming that goes on behind the scenes. We're supposed to believe everything presented is genuine. We're supposed to believe that the behavior onscreen is indicative of dance studios everywhere. Let's examine that idea, shall we?

"When a parent opens their mouth, they ruin their child"

Believe it or not, I understand the impulse behind this one. By the time you've had the hundredth parent ask if their five-year-old is ready for pointe, or get angry for not allowing their injured child to practice her fouettes in class, or suggest rescheduling the entire recital so they can watch the game at home, the average teacher might be tempted to utter these words. The truth is, anytime you deal with clients or customers, there's going to be a certain amount of crazy. This gets amplified when you throw something as foreign as dance into the mix. Dance is a culture and if you're outside that culture, it can be difficult to understand how things work. So, yeah, sometimes dealing with parents can be stressful.

However without them we'd be lost. Aside from the obvious, the fact that they enroll their children in dance, they help us in so many ways. They volunteer at recitals and sometimes even sign up for roles onstage. Not because they want to perform, but because they know how much their kids will get out of being in the same show as "Mommy and Daddy". At conferences they try to understand the intricacies of technique, because they want insight into the work their children do. They tell their friends about our studio. They carpool. They help out with costumes. They write positive reviews online and, when there's trouble, they rally on our behalf. Sometimes they even bring us veggies from their gardens. And, at the end of every recital, they wait for their kids, flowers in hand, ready to give them a huge hug. Seeing a daddy beaming over his little ballerina is about the cutest thing in the world.

I'm not the only one who knows this. A studio that doesn't value its parents is not a healthy place to dance. There are plenty of teachers and studio owners out there who appreciate their dance moms and dads.

"Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing."

Now, I'm as competitive as the next guy. Probably more. I really like winning. Back when I was a competitive dancer, I used to do visualization exercises where I imagined myself walking onstage to pick up a trophy larger than I was. But, even as an obsessed teenager, I knew all the hours logged at the studio weren't merely in service of winning. They were about learning to tell a story, to strengthen my body, to work with my classmates, to apply criticism, to present myself with pride, to do things that most people would consider impossible. Many students don't continue dancing after high school. They do other things with their lives. The trophies get donated to thrift stores and are soon forgotten. Winning is a temporary joy. If all we can give our students is trophies, we don't deserve their time.

"You're wearing two-piece costumes. Either sit down and do 100 sit-ups or paint on the abs. One or the other."

This particular quote comes from an episode where the girls (8-10 years old) are given a "sexy dance" to do. The idea is that dancing like the older girls will help them win at competition. Some of you might be familiar with the "Single Ladies" fiasco. I'm guessing that's where the producers got the idea for this particular episode of television. Here's the thing: yes, the sexualization of children in order to win trophies is wrong. I don't think I need to explain why it's wrong.

However, a lot of watchers seem to be under the misapprehension that this kind of thing is normal in the dance community. It is not normal. Do some research and look into the values of your local studios, because there will be ones that share your values. Dance does not equal the sexualization of children. Dance reflects the values of its makers. There are dance teachers out there (many) who are protective of their students and want them to grow up at their own pace. Parents can also change policy. If you are a parent and your son or daughter has been assigned a costume or dance that makes you uncomfortable, speak up! You have the power to create change. In many cases, teachers and studio owners are reasonable human beings willing to listen to your concerns. We're not all like Miss Abby.

Dance is hard work. It takes a lot of time, effort and sacrifice. Even if you are a brilliant dancer, dancing for a living is rough. It's one of the most impractical and unforgiving lives any human being can chose. Yes, there are rewards, but they come at a high price. An eight-year-old is incapable of understanding what this means. There's time to make those choices later. They shouldn't be so focused on their careers at this age. Children who are at the studio every day and competitions every weekend are missing everything else the world has to offer.

Kids need to play. They need to develop outside the studio. They should have friends and enough time at night to do their homework. Dance is a worthwhile pursuit, but it shouldn't be the only pursuit. Not at eight. I understand this. Other dance teachers understand this. Many of us only want the best for our students. Please, don't judge us by the crazy things that come out of Abby's mouth.

What Makes a Good Leader?

I've been thinking a lot lately about leaders as portrayed in literature and film. This has brought me to the realization that some of my favorite characters are those in leadership roles. When a character is responsible for the well-being of others, it brings so many elements of drama and tension into the story. Everything has a greater cost and that can emerge in fascinating ways.

One of my all time favorite characters is Mal Reynolds from the short-lived television show "Firefly" and film "Serenity". He's prickly, scarred and sometimes unapproachable. He's gotten used to being in charge and the fact that leaders are responsible for making the choices others might find unbearable. Yet, he's also the one cracking jokes and keeping people's spirits up when things go wrong (as they inevitably do). He has faith in the people he's chosen to surround himself with.

Another example is from Nova Suma's latest novel "Imaginary Girls".

Ruby's an enigmatic character who is often hard to relate to. She seems to have the whole world in her hands, but it isn't until late in the story that we find out there's a weight to such gifts. She's an interesting example of a leader, because in so many ways, she's still just a carefree child. Watching her balance those two sides of her personality is an interesting experience, an example of what can happen when a child leads.

Leaders have to be well-developed. There's something about the act of leading that forces dimension onto characters. The same might be said for people (the ones who aren't written, but actually breathe).

Leadership can be toxic, or it can be healthy. It can be held tightly in the fist, or in a laissez-faire style. It can be chosen, or bestowed. There are those who think of leadership and see only power, without acknowledging the self-sacrifice required to be effective, the long and thankless task before all those in charge.

A quote on leadership from Nelson Mandela: "It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership."

Publilius Syrus: "Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm."

What about you? What have you found to be the most striking examples of leadership in fiction? Or, film and television?

The Other Kind of Dream

You know that moment between dreams and waking? That moment when realities are shifting and you can't pin the truth down? Sometimes there is an intense sadness cutting through, because in your dream someone you love died and in your head they are still gone. Or, even worse, you dream someone alive, then wake up to discover they were dead all along. Last night I dreamed that one of my friends said something hurtful to me and I woke up feeling miffed at him. 

Go far enough back and memories are interchangeable with dreams. I remember both with the same clarity. A few of my childhood dreams were so vibrant that I don't know if they will ever leave me.

Dreams are often a tool for writers and filmmakers to reveal a character's subconscious state. I have to be honest, much as dreams fascinate me, most of the time I don't connect to their portrayal. They feel like a cool thing thrown in there because the creator thought it would be nifty. But, they end up taking away from the propulsion of the story. I just want the character to wake up so that they can get on with things! It can be a lazy way of explaining your character's feelings to spend a couple of pages describing some bizarre dream. Brilliant as you may be, I'm looking at you, Agnes De Mille.

I can't help but feel like Oklahoma! has some of the laziest storytelling ever. Sure, the Zeitgeist is fabulous, choreography stunning, music legendary, etc. But, the pivotal moment of the story comes about because Laurie takes some drugs that a peddler gives her and falls in love with Curly in a dream. Really? That's what caused the main female character to decide she loved the main male character? A drug-induced dream? Not any moments of truth based on things the character might have actually said or done in real life? Of course, it has been set up since the beginning that these two characters should end up together, so that makes it alright. Oh Rogers and Hammerstein, you make me want to laugh and cry, and not for the reasons you might think. Don't even get me started on Carousel.

Now, to compare one of the greatest classic films of all time to a television show about slaying vampires.

In the finale of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, season 4 all the big bads were gone and the whole episode revolved around the scooby gang crashing on the couch post-slaying. Each character nods off and has a dream.

Remember the guy with the cheese?

Why does this particular dream sequence work? Some might argue that it doesn't. Okay, why does it work for me? 1.) Unlike in Oklahoma!, the whole momentum of the plot does not depend upon it. 2.) The truths it reveals are foggy and open to misinterpretation, as in most dreams. Lots of other disjointed information weaves through the plot. 3.) The universe within which the show takes place has already established the fact that dreams can be prophetic. Because characters are running around killing vampires, it is easier to believe that a dream might have real significance. 4.) There is an intention behind the dream. It is driven by something other than chance and that is clearly stated. 5.) The story does not depend on the dream to do all of its character work. The decisions characters make in regards to each other are based on actual, real-life experience, not moments within the dream. Waking returns them to their conscious state.

The buffyverse uses dreams many times with varying levels of success.

As writers, if we're going to devote a lot of page space to dreams, I think we have to consider whether there is good reason to do so. Can we do it differently and meaningfully, or are we just looking for something simple and cool? Because dreams are fascinating. They tend to mesmerize our waking minds and we forget to use our analytical talents to consider that: yes, this has been done many, many, many, many times.

Our characters, ultimately, are going to be more interesting when they are awake. That's where the consequences and rewards exist.

Unless, as in Inception, you can figure out how to raise the dream stakes.

What dream sequences work or don't work for you?

Reader's log

5. Fire - Kristin Cashore