The space in between

You know when you get to that point, as an artist, where you have to let go and let the Universe do its bit? Where you need to relax after an intensely creative period but you're not sure how? It's like allowing yourself to do nothing is a crime against humanity, so soaked are we in our puritanical work ethic.

I'd like to permit myself to explore the art of doing nothing. Not forever, but for certain periods of time, amid those crazy creative spurts, the space in between. However, it's in those pauses that my fear of doing nothing emerges. If I do nothing, then I must be nothing. Except that being is enough. I don't do enough being. I do too much doing. I need to relax.

Here's a great quote by Paolo Coehlo: "If we are wasting time and enjoying ourselves, we are not wasting time." I wonder how much we miss because we're moving through life at breakneck speed, not stopping to "smell the flowers", as they say. I like to smell flowers.

But I need to train myself to smell flowers. It doesn't seem to come naturally. I used to be really good at doing nothing. I've somehow lost my edge when it comes to sloth. I now have an opportunity to revel in slowness, in frivolously wiling away the hours. If I do nothing, I'm still here so my theory doesn't hold true. By doing nothing, I'm still something. And by doing nothing, I'll be able to do something else, later on.

For us Westerners, doing nothing equates to lack of ambition, that revered quality that we must all possess if we are to be successful. But how do we measure success? Is time spent luxuriating in inactivity considered a shortcoming or a talent? I think it should be considered a talent since it can be quite difficult to truly give oneself over to idleness.

But once you do and drink the sweet nectar of slackness, it's a beautiful thing, a life skill that will come in handy for the rest of your life. Never underestimate the power of stillness, the yin to all our yang activity. (I'm actually trying to convince myself here as well.)

Glee, how could you?

You know what really gets under my skin? Once good TV shows that are now so crass in their quest for ratings, so overtly milking the political "causes" du jour, they basically turn said causes into a farce.

Glee is one such TV program, and was rewarded for its overt pandering at the recent Golden Globe awards. 

Chris Colfer, who portrays a gay student on the show, was awarded the Best Actor in a Supporting Role award. Chris was up against far superior competition but I have a sneaking suspicion the Hollywood Foreign Press also wants to be seen as politically correct. 

You see, in the current season of Glee, Colfer's character gets bullied by a secretly gay jock. Sound familiar? I'm sure you're all aware of the spate of suicides of gay teens last fall due to bullying, and the strong media backlash. 

I'm all for raising awareness of such an important issue. I am not, however, in favor of said "hot" issue being exploited to make a buck, and frankly, being portrayed by Colfer in such a poor manner, as a whiny victim for whom it is very difficult to have any sympathy.

I am by no means belittling the truly devastating effects of bullying. It is a real issue and it needs to stop. So does discrimination based on sexual orientation. These are fear-based behaviours, fueled by completely irrational beliefs, and they should remain at the forefront of our collective consciousness as long as necessary.

I'm sure Glee producers see themselves as the defenders of the ever popular message: "Be who you are, and don't be ashamed of it". At its root, this is a very positive message. 

Unfortunately, Glee, especially where Colfer's story line is concerned, falls into the basest "Movie of the Week" stereotypes about bullies and the bullied, and assumes its young audience has the intellectual quotient of a vegetable. 

Glee has managed to pander on many levels in its second season; each episode, with rare exceptions, sullied by a distasteful undercurrent of obvious exploitation.