Dancer Archive

Something occurred to me when responding to the last post. I think it may be the reason many of us--both patrons and performers--are unable to adjust to the new system.

When I was healing Battle Fatigue, I could be as melodramatic, comic, in-character, naiive, silly, and vibrant as I wanted to be. In one respect, that is why I enjoyed the "fall" animations as much as I did. Because the more interesting, silly, and melodramatic I was, the more interesting I was to look at. I was not evaluated on the basis of my ability to be serious. In fact, I was evaluated on my ability to be lighthearted.

Why was a naiive, melodramatic, fool like me, rewarded so well in the old game? Its because, and I know this sounds strange, but Battle Fatigue was so foolproof, that not even a fool like the one I played could mess it up. I could be whatever suited me, and heal it. And not only that, but being more foolish, more melodramatic, and more silly than the next entertainer was actually preferred by our audience. It provided them with an interesting spectacle, while they waited.

But targeted enhancements operate by a much different set of assumptions than Battle Fatigue. When we look at the way they work, they are not "foolproof." They require some coordination, and some concern to issue well. Maybe not much, but enough to make them require some volition on our parts to issue them. Its rather like a server, at a restaurant. We ask that she does her job with a certain decorum of seriousness, because we don't want to end up with a Reuben Sandwich an hour after our lunchbreak, when we ordered the Club Sandwich, and wanted it ten minutes after we ordered it.

Which brings up an interesting dilemma. If our buffs are not "foolproof," then will our audience still tolerate it when we act like the fools, drama queens, and improvisational players we did before? Seeing as this is a social profession, will we not have to also change our "social strategy," to cope with the change?

I have been in a time of profound reflection. I am trying to understand exactly why this profession doesn't feel right, from my vantage point. And I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the game has changed, and it will require a new sort of performance to do it, and have it work.

There was a time when "acting the fool" was a virtue in the cantina. And some of us--myself included--reveled in it! I could be a "drama queen" in the cantina, because the cantina in the original game actually promoted drama queen behaviour. The more wild, funny, self-deprecating, and melodramatic we were, the more we satisfied the basic tenant of cantina law: to make ten minutes feel like ten seconds. Wasting time is what we did best. And we prided ourselves on "laying waste to the BF metre," before patrons even had the inclination to check on it.

But if you were a patron, would you actually trust a melodramatic fool to get through a procedure that requires precision, and coordination? Or would you go to the one who wouldn't waste your time? That is the dilemma for we as performers today. We are still under the impression that cantina work is a matter of frivolity. But those days are over now, and patrons want to be entertained in a serious manner, if only to reassure them that they are not dealing with a fool, in a system that is not foolproof.

The entertainer of the future will not go to the cantina to "let her hair (or lekku, or frills) down." Instead, cantina work will be serious work. Performances will be restrained, and designed to reassure patrons that they are serious players, not fun ones. There is still room for entertainment, but we will be entertaining in the sense of a formal dinner party, not a comedy improv.

Patrons have been sounding on the boards, and in the game, for entertainers to take these new found responsibilities seriously. In fact, many of us want our fellow entertainers to take the responsibilities more seriously. That is because this profession is now a, "serious profession." All well and good if you want to be taken seriously as an entertainer. But problematic if you perform specifically because it rewards "acting the fool."

Perhaps this is why I do not look at these changes as anything to celebrate. Because I do not want to be a "polite dinner hostess," for the benefit of the patrons. I want an excuse to be a "melodramatic, silly fool,"and benefit them in spite of my facade.Unfortunately, that sort of entertainer, while great in the old system, is "too foolish for his or her own good," in the new system. Nobody who is looking for a buff feels comfortable seeing an amusing spectacle. They want reassurance from someone who takes the matters as seriously as they do.

Many here believe that there is still room for frivolity in the cantina. I do hope you are right, but somehow I'm not so sure. It seems to me that the more frivolous we are in this new system, the more we give off the impression that we don't care about our work. It used to be if a patron came into the cantina, I could keep him busy by telling him a story, or singing a song. Or saying, "Hello dear! My my, blue looks great on you. Where did you get it?," when the only thing he really needs to talk about is, "can u give me the chef buff?" In the old game, silence was a vice. In this new system, "talking too much," and the patron not having a word in edgewise can be seen as a crime.

We cannot play this new game like the old one. The very nature of what we do has changed, and with it, will require a new sort of performance. The cantina is no longer the place to be melodramatic, silly, foolish, or immersive. It is a place of restraint, distributing draws, etiquette, and normalcy. It is a "serious profession" now. And as such, requires a certain modicum of gravitas.