European Revolution

I have solved all the clues for this week’s Listener puzzle, “European Revolution” by Spud, and I’ve filled the grid. (I don’t completely understand the wordplay portions of 1 Down and 6 Down, and 25 Across seems to lead to two possible interpretations, but it seems clear what the grid entries have to be in all three cases.)

I’ve found the messages from the across and down clues, but have no idea how to use them. I’ve got the letters from the scrambled clues, other than being unable to resolve that ambiguity about 25A, but don’t know how to interpret them. I’ve Googled the message in the acrosses and learned something new, but not sure how or even whether to apply the subject to the puzzle.

Yikes! Now what?

Later: Yow, I have it at last. The ending is very hard but also very ingenious and funny once you find it.

Turns out I didn’t have the right word formed by the down clues, and didn’t have all the letters from the scrambled clues. Then I stumbled on a near anagram of the letters from the scrambled clues that made a certain sense with what I’d figured out about the puzzle, only it added one letter to the set I had and changed another. Then I saw that there was a third and better reading of 25A that changed that letter into one of the two I needed, and that the other letter I needed was right there to be gotten from one of the other clues but I had overlooked it. So I clearly had the right anagram.

Then I figured out how 1D and 6D worked, and corrected my interpretations of a couple of the other down clues, and the new letters I derived from those gave me a longer word out of the down clues, one that was more obviously (duh!) connected with the grid.

At that point I had two of the six elements I needed to find in the grid. It took me a while to find the other four. It’s very tricky. The introduction says 19 letters in the grid have to be changed. I kept seeing ways that I could create another element by making a small change, but there was no pattern to the changes, no justification for making them — and then all of a sudden the lightbulb went on and I saw the pattern. Sweet!

Circus Oz

Terry and Mauricio and Dave and I went to Circus Oz at Zellerbach Hall last night, as Dave’s birthday present to Terry. The show is a delight, sassy and crazy and a lot of fun. The performances are more improvisatory than polished, but that’s the point. It’s a small troupe, just eight or nine acrobats, plus a small but terrific live band and a sensational ringmaster/singer, Sarah Ward. Nobody shows off the kind of polished skill you find in, say, a Chinese circus, where an acrobat may devote his or her lives to perfecting one kind of act; here, everybody does several acts, all of them well but none of them the best you’ve ever seen. But it’s still one of the best times I remember having at a circus — it reminded me at times of the spirit of the old Pickle Family Circus.

In Other Words, the Only “Trend” Here Is That the Problem Is Now Only 98% Invisible to the Media Instead of 100% Invisible

There are roughly 31,000 teen suicides each year; let’s round it down to 30,000. Various studies have shown that gay teens are anywhere from twice as likely to seven times as likely to attempt suicide; let’s take a conservative estimate and say twice. The percentage of people who are gay is probably around 6% to 7%; let’s take a conservative estimate and say 5%.

That means that a conservative estimate of the percentage of teen suicides that are of gay teens is about 9.52%. Multiply that by 30,000 and you get 2857 gay teen suicides per year, or 238 per month.

That’s using very conservative estimates. Let’s try making them just modestly conservative. Say that 6% of all teens are gay, and that they’re 2.5 times as likely to kill themselves, and the result is that 13.8% of all teen suicides are of gay teens, or 4128 per year, or 344 per month.

Those are, as I said, conservative numbers. If you take the most widely quoted statistic, which is that 30% of all teen suicides are of gay teens, then you get 9000 per year, or 750 per month.

There’s nothing new about any of this; the estimates were in the same ballpark when I was majoring in psychology in college 25 years ago.

So if you hear me grinding my teeth at the recent articles about gay teens who have killed themselves, it’s not that I’m annoyed by the coverage. It’s that I’m annoyed about the repeated references to these six suicides as a “dramatic increase” or a “disturbing trend” or anything like that. The high suicide rate among gay teens has been a tragedy I have known about and lived with my whole adult life as a gay man, and hearing these six suicides presented as though they were anything out of the ordinary angers me.

The only thing out of the ordinary here is that, of the several hundred gay teen suicides that occur every month, the mainstream media is ignoring merely all but six of them, instead of ignoring all of them as they usually do.

Yes, it would be wonderful if the current media attention leads to some change. Not saying that’s a bad thing. I’m just angered at the pretense that at least thirty or forty times this many suicides haven’t been happening every month for decades.

A Change of Clothing

This week’s Listener crossword puzzle, “A Change of Clothing” by Elgin, is brilliant, and has a hilarious surprise ending. I wish I could talk all about it here without giving anything away, but I can’t. Let’s just say that the puzzle concerns (according to the introduction) a heist, and that there are some red herrings very ingeniously built into the puzzle, and leave it at that.

Oh, and a lot of very nice clues, too.

Even after figuring out what was going on and completing the grid in a way that satisfied all the instructions, gave me the pair of crime fighters I needed, unambiguously pointed at the culprit, and justified the title of the puzzle, I was hung up for a long while because for all this to work out, a particular four-letter combination in my final grid had to be either a word in Chambers Dictionary or a proper noun that could be found in either the Oxford Dictionary of English or Chambers Biographical Dictionary. But it didn’t seem to be in Chambers and I don’t own either of the other two reference books so can’t check in them. However, if it were somebody well known enough to make it into two reference books, he or she couldn’t be hard to track down, right? I did a Google search on the letter combination, and checked Wikipedia, and looked it up in the biographical dictionaries and other reference books that I do own, and there was nothing anywhere.

Well, it turns out that the four-letter word is in Chambers, but for some reason it’s not in the iPhone version that is what I use most often. When I pulled the actual book down from the shelf, duh, there it was. It was a variant spelling of an obsolete word, but still, there it was. That’ll teach me to rely on the completeness of the iPhone version.

Later: Double duh: Chambers Biographical Dictionary is available for searching online.

Two Violin Concertos with the Berkeley Symphony

Last Thursday Dave and I went to hear the Berkeley Symphony’s season opener, a performance of not just one but two violin concertos, the Beethoven and the John Adams, both played by violinist and superhuman Jennifer Koh. In both works the violinist is kept very, very busy, and just to play the solo parts of both adequately in a single evening, without your bowing arm falling off, would be an amazing enough accomplishment. But Ms. Koh also played them both dazzlingly well, with all sorts of wit, insight, power, and precision. Dave and I have been hearing the Beethoven violin concerto rather a lot lately, including a really terrific performance with Hilary Hahn as soloist that was broadcast from the BBC proms; and still I heard details and nuances in Ms. Koh’s performance that I don’t remember noticing before. Really wonderful.

I had not heard the John Adams violin concerto before. I’m not sure how much I like it; it’ll probably take me a few hearings before I know. It’s certainly striking and atmospheric music, but it didn’t feel to me like it moved or developed much. However, I’m not always a good listener and sometimes it takes me a while to start hearing things in a piece of music that’s new to me, so I have to grant the possibility that I just haven’t gotten this one yet. In any case, Ms. Koh played it with great spirit and precision and, at times, physical vigor. I figure after a double bill like this one, she gets to skip the gym for a week.

This is Joana Carneiro’s second year as conductor and music director, and I thought the orchestra was sounding very polished, much more so than it has in the past; as exciting as the performances usually were when Kent Nagano was conducting, there was always a bit of scrappiness in the playing. Not so this time. Dave and I went to only one of their concerts last year, and that was early in the season, so this is the first time we’ve heard the orchestra in about a year; under Ms. Carneiro they’ve come a long way in a short time.

Much Ado at CalShakes

Dave and I saw Much Ado About Nothing at CalShakes on Friday evening. I wasn’t all that enthusiastic about going, frankly — not only have I seen Much Ado in more productions than any other Shakespeare play, but I’ve written not one but two librettos based on it, one of them for a musical comedy called All’s Fair and the other one an entirely new libretto (not just a translation of the existing libretto) for Berlioz’s opera Béatrice et Bénédict. So, as much as I love the play, I know it too well for my own good. Money is very tight for us and we’ve had to limit our playgoing drastically (which depresses me more deeply than I can convey), so I don’t know whether we’d have gone when there are so many other things we also want to see right now. However, we have a friend at CalShakes who got us a pair of comps to the Friday night preview (thank you!), and, well, if I’d known it was this good, there wouldn’t have been any doubt in my mind about it. This is a one-for-the-life-list Much Ado, probably the best production I’ve ever seen. (Not counting the productions of my own adaptations, of course. I reserve the right to be unreasonably prejudiced about those.)

The performances are fantastic all the way down to the small roles. Andy Murray may be the best Benedick I’ve ever seen, and as I’ve seen Kevin Kline in the role I wouldn’t have thought that I’d ever be saying that of anyone else in this lifetime. Domenique Lozano is wonderful as Beatrice. The two are enormously funny, with lots of the proper commedia dell’arte spirit in their performances, yet always human and often very moving.

Dan Hiatt doubles the parts of Leonato and George Seacole (a member of Dogberry’s watch). He’s terrific in both, and I’ve never seen him look so damn hot as he does in his pirate-y getup for the latter role. Woof! I’ve always found Mr. Hiatt endearingly attractive, but after this production it may have flowered into a full-blown crush. Danny Scheie doubles the parts of Don John and Dogberry, which is a terrific idea that I’d never seen done before; I’m usually not a big fan of Mr. Scheie’s, who is usually too campy a clown for my taste, but I thought he was spot on as Dogberry, hilariously silly and foolish without taking it over the top into camp. On the other hand, he did sometimes take Don John there, which seemed unnecessary to me considering that he was already getting big laughs on his first appearances doing nothing but glowering, before he’d even had anything much to say or do.

The only other thing I remember thinking was less good than it could have been was Claudio’s scene at Hero’s “tomb”. All his youthful arrogance and rashness is understandable enough to me, but in order to feel forgiveness toward him by the time we get to the happy ending, I want to believe that he has learned a painful truth about himself (and about the true nature of humanity), something that is going to change him for the better, and forever. I yearn to feel at the end of the play that the Claudio who ends the play is not the Claudio who began it, that all his flattering illusions about himself have been shattered, that the searing heat of self-examination without the protective masking of illusion has melted his soul and flesh and reforged it into something that is stronger now for having gone through the fire. Okay, okay, this may well be an unreasonable expectation, and based as much on the choices I myself made about Claudio’s emotional through-line in my own two adaptations as it is on hard evidence from the play itself as to what Claudio is going through; but for better or for worse, that’s how I feel about Claudio. Nick Childress as Claudio (who is otherwise very good indeed) felt to me like he never got to that level, that his grief was sincere, but not searing enough to be reshaping his very soul and redeeming him. And without believing that, I end up feeling a bit wry rather than teary-eyed about his reunion with Hero.

No such feeling about Benedick and Beatrice, though — those two had clearly been on a journey of the soul that had reshaped them for all time.

Even the smaller roles are strikingly performed — Catherine Castellanos has a remarkable doubling as Ursula and Verges, and Thomas Gorrebeeck makes a dangerously handsome Borachio. Emily Kitchens makes Hero a much fuller and more believable character than Shakespeare deserves, having given her so few lines. Delia Macdougall as Margaret and Nicholas Palczar as Don Pedro likewise flesh out their relatively small roles in memorable ways. Andrew Hurteau is a hoot as Friar Francis. (Though even he couldn’t avoid getting a laugh from the audience with the very awkward line in which he tells Leonato that if Hero is really guilty after all, she can be sent to live in a convent. It’s a bad laugh there, the kind where the audience is laughing uncomfortably, not at the characters and the situation, but at the heartlessness of the Elizabethan attitude toward women. The only way I’ve ever found not to get a laugh there is to say that line in anger to Leonato, as if to say, “Even though it completely disgusts me, if I have to add this appalling condition to the bargain I’m making with you, in order to get you to accept it, then I will; but I think you are being loathsome in requiring it before you’re swayed”. If you say the line as it appears on its surface, as though it were one more logical argument in favor of the scheme the friar is proposing, it comes off as horribly lame and heartless.)

And the attention to detail in all the acting and staging — wow. Director Jonathan Moscone has done an astonishing job. I wasn’t expecting to find so much fresh delight and pleasure in a play I’m so overly familiar with.

Okay, geek time now: It annoyed me, as it always does, to hear Borachio pronounce covertly as co-VERT-ly. I’m just old enough to remember how this pronunciation became common among television newscasters reporting on espionage during the Vietnam War, and I find it disconcerting to hear a Shakespearean character pronounce it in a way that became commonplace only within my own living memory. It should have the stress on the first syllable, CUH-vert-ly, as though you were saying coveredly, in a covered manner, which is what the word means.

I know there’s nothing to be done about it. Few hear it as I do, and I’m sure that we get fewer every year. Both Borachios in the two productions I’ve had of my Berlioz adaptation were very agreeable about it, but it was clear neither of them heard the same connotations in the pronunciation that I do, and were probably thinking Well, you know how writers are, I suppose I’d better just humor him on the small stuff like this. So I have no expectations that things will or should be different on this point just to suit me. But this is my blog so I get to say it bugs me.

Passing Thought

It seems to me that there are two scary things about the argument that homosexuals don’t deserve to have equal rights under the law because homosexuality is a mental illness, and the fact that homosexuality is not actually a mental illness is possibly the less scary of them.

Thank You

Many thanks to everyone who took part in last night’s reading. I love you all! I got a fresh perspective on the first act as whole, got lots of useful feedback about what worked for people and what didn’t, and came away with a lot of new clarity what needs trimming and/or rewriting.

Plus: Everyone seemed to have a good time and enjoy the act overall. Very encouraging.

The first act took just shy of 70 minutes to read through, which is too long. I’d like to cut about 20 minutes away from that. I think about 10 or 12 minutes of that will be easy and come just from tightening up scenes that can take it (and I think a lot of them can, now that I’ve heard the act read through). Cutting the act down further than that will probably require actually cutting two or three incidents along the way, though, and that’ll take more thought.