Freelancing

It finally happened. I lost my place in my wardrobe. I had to go through ALL of my previous posts on this blog because at some time during my hiatus, my system of moving blogged shirts into a "done" drawer had broken down and I couldn't honestly remember if I had worn this shirt already or not.

Turns out I hadn't. Whew.























I believe that this is the last of my Red Vs. Blue/RoosterTeeth shirts. Tex was a mysterious character introduced late in Season 1 and, although affiliated with Blue Team in Blood Gulch, maintains a freelancer/mercenary status for the rest of the series (according to the Wiki). Tex is also the first female character brought into the series (besides Sheila, the tank) and, to begin with, the most lethal, competent, and relentless agent. This becomes a common set of traits among the freelancers. In a way, the Freelancer Project in RVB is the perfect device to illustrate the difference between agents with team connections and those working without social supports or safety nets.

I can't say that I've ever been a proper freelancer. I think to make a claim to that, I would have to be gainfully (and solely) employed as such. I do stuff I like to do to some net benefit but, whether it stems from an inherent fear of failure or a practical need for traditional, reliable employment, I've always relegated these activities - writing, acting, knitting, photography - to a category more akin to an organized hobby than a life priority. It doesn't mean that I don't try to create something meaningful when I do make the time for these things, just that I like to keep the things I do for fun, "fun".

Besides, although I consider myself to be a fairly optimistic person, I don't think that I could handle the rejection, criticism, and rebuilding that seems to be a given in the world of freelancing.

These sorts of ouroboros-like existences hold no allure for me and that's probably the best indication that I'm not cut out for that life.

Now, my quandary for readers today is: if we were to remove the requirement of cost-of-living monetary compensation or viable career from the definition of "freelancer", how many of us could call ourselves "independent [fill in the blank] contractors" or a "freelancing [fill-in-the-blank]? If you could monetize a hobby, what would it be? What skill is it that your friends look to you for?

For example, in certain contexts, I am a fairly organized person (although not in terms of my t-shirts today, obviously) and to a large extent, I really enjoyed planning my own wedding (the largest and most involved event I've ever planned) so the hubby and I discussed what my life as an event planner could look like as we drove back to Vancouver from the Valley a few weeks ago. After weighing a number of factors, we figured out it could never work as a business because I would have to insist on a "no-crazy" clause, even (especially) temporary-totally-caused-by-upcoming-event crazy. With this deal-breaker in place, I would be setting an impossibly high standard for most brides, grooms, and their families. But I still like event planning. So I'll help friends out, problem-solve with them, and brainstorm themes, decor and all sorts of DIY awesomeness if called upon. This approach also deals with the second issue we identified in the business plan - pricing. I could see event planning as one of those past-times that I'd feel awful to be charging for if I was having a great time doing it and which no amount of money could compensate me for if it all goes sideways. Getting paid isn't enough. Satisfaction is the key. Just off the top of my head, I know people who could realistically be identified as freelance chocolatiers, herbalists, florists, model designers, pastry chefs, artists, composers, therapists, or editors ... IF we determine that getting paid isn't a requisite. They pursue these avenues because it's what they do, it's what they need to do. In re-defining the term, "freelancing" isn't about freedom from a commitment to an employer or workplace, it's about a commitment to yourself.

Approximations

Being precise is a gift as well as a skill that takes practice. Mark Twain is quoted on the topic, discussing lightning and lightning bugs. Dr. Beverly Hofstadter on The Big Bang Theory requires it constantly. It echoes the power of naming a thing from folklore and mythology.

The Sarge, in Season 1 of Red Vs Blue, has difficulty pronouncing "Chupacabra" in his eagerness to make fun of Grif and resorts, as many of us would do, to approximating the word. Thus, the "chupathingy" is born. 

To be fair, approximations are a valid use of language. We all have those 'tip-of-the-tongue" moments where we can't recall the exact term we need. The brain files things away in its own special way sometimes. So we have place-markers like "thingamagig" and "whathisface" and "whozit" to fill in until we figure it out. Or we use similar, sometimes related terms/names to approximate what we need. For example, a man I used to know could never remember George Stroumboulopoulos' surname so would refer to him as "Snuffleupagus" instead because he had a better grasp of Muppet characters than pretty much anything else in his life. And I guess the CBC connection made it relevant.

However, the point of approximations is to direct the brain to the precise term you are looking for NOT to take the place of said term. If vocabulary becomes too vague or inaccurate, you end up with the Bushisms that #43 will always be remembered for and all the questionable intelligence that entails. Or you discover that when you REALLY need a precise term that you once knew, you've genuinely lost it. Studies show that early onset senility is as much a case of lack of use as a genetic predisposition. 

Where this shows up on the other end of the timeline is profound - language acquisition in babies. Nouns are the easiest things for children to learn as they are usually visual, tactile and novel. Pointing to something and saying a word is easily interpreted as naming that thing. Acquaintances I met last fall were describing their daughter's pre-talking activity of pointing and grunting at various things she desired. Mum would randomly pick things up and ask Baby,"Is it this? Is this what you want?" until assent was given. When Baby started verbally asking for things, everything was "this" rather than any specific name for an item. It apparently took weeks to de-program that little trick. 

When I was visiting friends in the UK who had a precocious and eager to learn toddler, we had a sudden power outage and dinner had to be served by candlelight. Their toddler immediately reached for the flame of the nearest candle and, reactively, I grabbed his hand and said clearly,"No. HOT!" indicating the flame. He looked at me very seriously and pointed to the flame and repeated "HOT!" and I reinforced the learning by agreeing "HOT!" He did not try to touch another candle that night. Lesson learned. The next night, power had been restored and we were in the living room when he looked up, saw the light fixture in the ceiling and pointed. "HOT!" In fact, anything bright was now "HOT!" Oops. Well, generally, in the world of incandescent bulbs, that's sort of accurate. Net learning for the grown-ups: adjectives are trickier.

Defining By the Negative

It's sometimes hard to know what something or someone IS right away. It's an easier exercise to eliminate what IS NOT. 

Shirt sourced from RVB - Quote citation: Pvt Donut

Canadians often define themselves as "not American" probably because a general definition of "American" is so widely recognized. I find myself describing myself as "not an English teacher" often (mostly because I balk at claiming to be able to keep up with the amount of work they do -- just not happening). And my fellow teachers often feel it necessary to remind non-teachers (and students) that "teaching" does not equal "baby-sitting" nor does school take the place of social work, counseling, a finishing program, hygiene centre, laundromat, or dating service.

The problem with defining through elimination is that eventually someone wants a positive, affirmative statement of what actually IS. When hour-long television comedies appeared without laugh tracks and with long-game story arcs, the term "dramedy" followed shortly afterwards. When novels of contemporary manners and social foibles became popular in the bookstores and libraries, "chick lit" became a thing. Terms like "bromance" and "pwn", often with esoteric origins, now serve a purpose or become appropriated to fill a definition niche. It may be a previously undefined melded category. It may be a needed superlative. Language is magical because it can be changed and challenged in so many innovative ways. 

Defining by the negative is the first step in giving name to your world but if it's your only strategy, you may end up like the kid who only knows what he doesn't want to eat - grumpy and hungry for something you can't name.

So... how do you define yourself as AND as not?

IMHO: The Right Guy Won

Woo-hoo!

It still seems like the race was far closer than it needed to be but President Obama's win last night was a gratifying and satisfying conclusion to months and MONTHS of ridiculous television ads. Jeff and I celebrated with ice cream.

Now, about getting the rest of the world right.... Please take a look at my friend Evan Fraser's new video:

The official website for Evan's research is not yet running but I'll post about it once it is. Meanwhile, please share the video as the information is important, accurate, and fun to watch. Also, I've added a little video bar on the left so you won't need to come looking for this post again when you want a refresher. Hopefully, it'll do what it's supposed to do and update whenever Evan et al add a new video.

Today, I was debating between a couple of shirts and decided that "BLUE ARMY" was a fun little wink at the Democratic win. The shirt is actually a piece of Red vs. Blue merchandise that I quite like. The character of Caboose is insane ... and really, really dangerous to be around. But I appreciate the fact that his voice actor once stated that the motivation for playing Caboose is that Caboose is "the only character who is aware that he's in a video game." The meta nature of that statement holds a lot of appeal to me. Often, when working with a student, it pays off enormously to take a step back and realize that we are all playing a game and, even if that game is necessary (student needs to pass Math), we have to take a perspective break once in a while (how important are exponents REALLY?).

 

Yesterday, we watched a momentous event of great importance happen but that great importance is very much qualified by the moment, even if that moment extends over the next four years or to the end of the next decade. A century from now, who the political leaders today are won't matter. What will matter is what we as a species create and start for our descendents to carry on with. And if they have anything to eat that isn't Soylent Green.

Keeping it Simple

As counter-intuitive as it may seem, simple is not easy. Keeping things simple these days is hard work. It's a conscious effort. One of my co-workers stated one aspect of this last week when he said to a student,"If you want to be lazy, you have to be organized." Being disorganized is easy but it makes getting things done far more complicated, ie ,"not simple". (PLEASE go take a look at the "ie" link. LOVE oatmeal.com. Might need to look into buying a t-shirt from there when I start running out of fuel for this blog)

Today's shirt has a simple message but it's not an easy intention. Human nature focuses on the negative and the easiest thing for most people to criticize is themselves. I've spent a lot of my life self-hating aspects of myself, largely physical ones, and it takes effort to remind myself that what I judge as lacking or aberrant isn't necessarily what matters in the grand scheme. Many of my students have a hard time liking themselves in school because they don't see themselves as successful compared to their peers. I probably annoy a lot of them with my persistent cheerleading but if they aren't going to talk themselves up internally, I'm gonna do it for them externally, loud and proud and in their face.

The shirt is courtesy of Rooster Teeth (because there's NO other way that their logo could be interpreted... nooooo) and the geniuses behind the Red vs. Blue (aka RVB) online video series. Arguably, Season 1 was the best (I haven't seen the most recent series) but Halo fans deserve their own entertainment niche as much as the next game culture. And the RVB episodes are extremely accessible to non-gamers. The creators seem to have a good time with the stand-alone PSAs that come out every once in a (timely) while too:

 

To tie it all back to the title of this post, I refer to the very first episode of RVB:

In the commentary on the DVD, the creators explain that the very first shot in this very first episode (0:00-0:06 approx), a "simple" pan up to the Red sentries before they start talking, was the most difficult and frustrating shot of the episode, possibly of the season because the "camera" character had to be balanced on the barrel of a tank and then raised up to create the panning effect. Apparently, the game engine never thought that "balancing on the barrel of a tank" would be a needed trait in their characters and the "camera" kept falling off ... and dying. "Take 196, anyone? And action! Aw, crap, we're dead again."  So once again, simple does not mean easy. Simple is a craft. Easy is a default.