Zen and the Art of Successful Auditions

A lot of the actors I know, whatever their relative level of experience or talent, hate auditioning. They find it stressful. Which I suppose it is. I myself, though, have always rather enjoyed the experience. It's fun to get up onstage and do a monologue or some cold reading from a script. I mean, it's acting! And acting is fun! Why else would anyone do it? And I'm convinced that my comparatively successful track record--I tend to get cast in the plays I try out for--has as much to do with the fact that I basically have fun at auditions as it does with whatever relative reserves of talent or experience I possess. The formula is something like this: Auditioning = fun. Fun = relaxed. Relaxed = natural. Natural = cast-able.

I offer this advice not so much to other actors, who I suspect already know this on an intellectual level, even if they might mutter, "Easier said than done." Rather, I offer this to anyone who faces an "audition" of his own, be it in the form of interviewing for a dream job or asking out that cute co-worker: Don't focus on the outcome. Enjoy the process. Worst case scenario: You'll have some fun doing something that could lead to something wonderful. Best case scenario, you have the fun and the wonderful thing, too.

A Modest Proposal

Much has been written about the attempts on the part of Major League Baseball to speed up the pace of play. A countdown clock now looms over the outfield of every ballpark, ticking away the seconds between innings. Pitchers and hitters are also on the clock, as they face fines for wandering around the mound or leaving the batter's box between pitches. No crackdowns on excessive scratching or spitting yet, unless these activities occur during walks around the mound or require leaving the batter's box. Stay tuned.

I would like to make a modest proposal, though, that would speed up the games AND likely increase the number of runs scored--a lack of offense in the post-steroid era being another major concern of MLB. I would like to propose that a manager be allowed a maximum of one pitching change per inning. A starter could be pulled at any time, but, once a reliever is brought in, that reliever MUST finish the inning. If he gets shelled, he gets shelled. This would also get rid of those frankly annoying instances of a manager bringing in a righty to face a right-handed batter, and then pulling that pitcher if the next hitter is a lefty. Obviously, exceptions would have to be made in the case of an injury, but otherwise, this would clearly shave significant minutes off of most games--and/or allow fans to see more runs scored if a fresh arm can't be brought in to bail out someone who just doesn't have it on a given night. And frankly, this would be a better solution than the introduction of timers into a fundamentally timeless sport.

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

The headline on the online version of The New York Times reads, "Stressing Youth, Marco Rubio Joins 2016 Presidential Field."

I don't know about the youth of America, but it certainly stresses me.

Meet the Mets...Later

Does it make sense to record sporting events? I ask this question as I sit here, typing, with the Mets game on--a Mets game that I assume ended several hours ago. I recorded the game because I like the Mets and, living in the Bay Area, I don't get to see them with any regularity. So, on those occasions when they ARE on national TV, I feel almost obligated to watch them--which generally means recording the games, as the games usually start (or in the case of day games like today's, start and end) while I'm at work. But does it make sense?

I mean, I fast forward through the commercials. But when I do that, I think, y'know, I could also fast forward to move more quickly from one batter to the next.  But if I'm going to do that, I could pretty much just skip to "interesting" moments: Maybe I could keep speeding through until I see runners on base.  But if I do that, why not just skip to the end to see who wins? Or just go to Nymets.com and check the score?  Because if I watch the whole game and they actually lost, am I not just setting myself up for disappointment? Leaving aside for the moment the reasonable question of whether being a Mets fan is, by definition, setting myself up for disappointment?  Is watching a recorded sporting event really nothing more than a sort of magical thinking?

Breaking News

Out of my undying sense of journalistic responsibility, I feel compelled to report that Hillary Clinton has formally announced her candidacy for . . . Hold on, let me check my notes. . .  Ah! President. She's running for president.

Of the United States, that is.

I know that some of my followers get their news exclusively from The Solipsist, and I wanted to make sure that none of you ends up looking like an idiot at a cocktail party, pooh-poohing the notion of Hillary's candidacy.

Incidentally, you shouldn't pooh-pooh ANYTHING at a cocktail party. Or anywhere else, for that matter. That's just gross.

Do people even HAVE cocktail parties anymore? I mean, I hear "cocktail party," and I get an image of, like, George Sanders and Bette Davis in evening dress, exchanging witticisms. And I don't even know who those people ARE!

Where was I?

Oh, yes, Hillary. You know, the ignorantsia at places like Fox News like to bash Hillary by saying, among other things, that she's "obsessed" with the presidency, that she sees it as some sort of entitlement. To which I think the only logical reply is, "Yes. And?" Of course, she's obsessed and feels entitled! I mean, think about the chutzpah it takes for someone to think that they are actually qualified to BE president. That alone is a sign of some kind of insanity, be the candidate Democrat or Republican.  If you're NOT obsessed and DON'T feel entitled, you've picked the wrong way to spend the next year and a half.