Major Writing Assignment

Major Writing Assignment – Due January 17, 2006

Advanced English with Mr. S. Van Zoost

NAME OF STUDENT: Jonathan Borden

Title of writing piece: “Epistle of the decadent lady”

TYPE OF WRITING STRUCURE

FORMCHECKBOX Eulogy

FORMCHECKBOX Short Story

FORMCHECKBOX Academic Essay

FORMCHECKBOX Persuasive speech

FORMCHECKBOX Personal Essay

√ FEATURE ARTICLE

FORMCHECKBOX Script

FORMCHECKBOX Screenplay

FORMCHECKBOX Monologue

FORMCHECKBOX Testimonial

FORMCHECKBOX Autobiography

FORMCHECKBOX Biography

FORMCHECKBOX Editorial

FORMCHECKBOX Letter(s)

FORMCHECKBOX Other (as approved): ________

What are the writing goals that you address in this piece of writing?

1. To improve on my development of characters (mannerisms, dialogue styles, differentiation between characters, et cetera).

2. To mimic a contemporary style of journalism; to follow a contemporary magazine article/interview format.

Why did you choose this particular structure and topic for your writing? How did these choices help you to address your writing goals? I chose this particular structure because I am an admirer of feature articles, they offer an entertaining and even magical, self-contained world presented as an alternative to the dreaded style and format of news media reports. They take the facts, and use them to persuade—much better than traditional essays—the reader to not necessarily accept the notions of the feature article text, but to accept the ‘offer’ of the text, to let the text draw you in. This format allowed me to achieve much more adequately than any of the other formatting options, my desired goals as set out above quite perfectly matched this format. I wanted to create a world self-contained in article form.

Describe the writing process used in crafting this text. To begin writing this text, I began brainstorming, in my mind, a quintessential archetype of rebellion and decadence and artistry in female form, like many allegories are, as an expression maybe of my own views, or views I admire. That’s how I developed the main character, who is a huge part, indeed, the whole focus of this fictional feature article. I then drew up a family tree for the main character and created her siblings and parents, and grandparents, et cetera. I basically organized, using a genealogical table, my ideas in a tangible note to refer back to once I started writing. On the family tree, I inserted notes next to each personality regarding various events of interest and relevance to my story in their lives. I made so many notes but only used a few. I also researched ‘decadent’ artists as well as actors I admire, particularly Mary Pickford. The actual ‘writing process’ would best be labeled ‘stream of consciousness’ I never planned out the actual text, just the characters’ lives. It was a cool approach.

Please direct my anecdotal comments – what would you like me to notice and respond to in your writing? I would be satisfied if you noticed the inspirations for the main character, Gladys. Tell me which people she reminds you of, do you know anyone who reminds you of her? See my comments throughout. Do we all know someone like her? Perhaps we all imagine someone like her as a proverbial life-guide. I made parallels in this interview to Virgil in Dante’s writing – the need to have a guide through some of life’s more difficult questions. The parts that were the most interesting to me in the interview were when we got a sense of how J was using G’s life as a sort of guide for his own perceptions. Do we all wish to be her on some level? On some level, I wonder if we all want to be able to look at our lives without regrets and be able to say, “I have lived a full life.” Other readers (and here is the beauty of literature) may find other redeeming qualities of G’s life, such as her lack of caring what other people think (ironically, her life is largely DETERMINED by what other people think of her). So basically, firstly, dissect the main character. Secondly, give some anecdotal comments on what details should be included in the ‘interview’/’article’; does it have the appearance of contemporary journalism? Thirdly, examine the layers, if any, in my piece. I was tempted to create a few more visual details of G’s interview setting. For example, I imagined a lot textures surrounding her – chenille pillows, marble and glass tables, ornate gold-framed over-sized mirrors. I think more connection between her physical and internal worlds would have added another observational layer for J to comment and interpret for the reader. What layers should be included? I think more layers about the play between G and J can be added during the interview itself. The internal monologues which occur in the first section are very successful and contribute to the journalistic style which you are mimicking. It’s more interesting to look at G through the lens of the journalist – otherwise, I might as well read her biography. I think G would say as much too. Which should not be? Fourthly, what is your opinion, your impression of this piece? I was hooked! I wanted to read a more conclusive ending of the interview, especially about what the interviewer gleamed from the experience and what he believes would be useful for readers to take away from the article.

Guidelines:

1. Your writing will be assessed using the prose rubric used throughout the course as presented at the bottom of this document (Thought and Detail, Organization, Matters of Correctness, and Matter of Choice).

2. The length of your writing piece must be a minimum of 1000 words. A maximum of 5000 words is expected, unless permission from Mr. VZ has been granted in advance of your writing.

3. The content of your writing must be appropriate for my sensitivities. Please ensure that your writing is PG-14 and avoids the issues of:

a. unnecessary violence

b. inappropriate use of language for public consumption

c. promoting stereotypical perspectives of the world

d. immature writing that discourages reflection

4. Copy and Paste your writing below and then save this file as “MWA – YOUR NAME – Adv 11 (or 12)”

5. Email me this completed file with the subject line “MWA – YOUR NAME – Adv 11 (or 12)”

EPISTLE OF THE DECADENT LADY

a feature article/cover story by Jonathan Borden

[actually for Adv. Eng. Major Writing Piece 05/06]

[begun: January 14, 2006; finished: January 15, 2006;

final word count: 4673]

“I’m the has-been that everyone’s been to,” quips Rhys-Bonaventure.

“Two weeks ago Lenny Kravitz sat right where you are and played me,” she pauses, smiling, “played me one of his more recent licks. ‘Where Are We Running?’”

The rebellious starlet has been half-heartedly recanting the secrets of her illustriously decadent life--her indefatigable career, both intertwined as a single, irresistible illusion--for an hour or more (guitar icon Lenny Kravitz is an occasional guest here) while I sit nervously in the antique chair across from her in the drawing-room of her manor house. The air of her presence excites raw awareness partnered with unquenchable curiosity, fermented instantly with the liquor of admiration. Interview is to it an understatement; the experience presses on.

“Harington Park.”

She exhales the exhaust of her tobacco-tainted inner-workings, her eyes gliding up and down my awkward figure--quite calculatedly--and Gladys, no less an unstoppable machine than an ambitious lady, doesn’t speak, but whirs a husky anecdote in my direction.

“It’s been in my mother’s family for years. It was built for my fourth-great grandfather I’m told. The first Earl of Camdenshire.” Lady Gladys Alexandra Rhys-Bonaventure casually raps her slender cigarette on a crystal ashtray as she catches me mesmerized by the fizzle of the fading light on its burning end - its form breaking into ashes.

“You’d say that’s like my career, wouldn’t you?” Chuckling, Gladys--as she absolutely insists on being called, for she “...doesn’t play that monarchist jazz...”--compares her lengthy existence which burns as ferociously as her presence--to the career of being a Rhys-Bonaventure.

“My mother met my father at a bookstore in Oxford. He overheard her trying to sell back her university texts to the bookseller, describing how she needed the money to end the travesty which was her school life to pursue dancing. Father walked over to her and shared her frustration, offering a too oft-told tale of inability to finance and realize his academic endeavours, lack of acceptance, and of his poetry which, in the face of his struggles, flourished as his raison d’être. Mother was instantly taken by him. This, this...struggling, pleasantly-impoverished would-be poet...had more appeal in that three minute description of himself--an utter catharsis between he and her--than any of the blokes at Oxford did in their week-long appeals for her affection.”

Such a back-story is classic. I start to loosen up as she offers yet more truth to me, the first journalist permitted by her to conduct an interview and unravel her mystery in nineteen years. Likening me with hearty, even haughty laughter to her Apostle, she commands that this article be printed as her letter to the artists of the world, outlining the process of transcendence through experiential endeavour; a sordid Epistle of the Decadent Lady.

“You’re the most eagre of the news-boys, aren’t you? Worthy to be my little disciple. Continue, clever chap. And when you’re finished, circulate this as my epistle. Bright Young Apostle.”

After I tell her how much I like the concept, she further explains her goals for the article and gets back to relating a career to membership in a titled British family. (Her late father, Lord Oliver Bonaventure, seventh Earl of Camdenshire, gained his title upon his marriage to Gladys’ mother, Lady Alexandra Rhys, daughter and only heir of the sixth Earl. Gladys’ oldest brother, Lord Michael Rhys-Bonaventure, is the current, eighth Earl.)

Through the lingering haze of the cigarette smoke hanging between us, I squint, for a second it seems one can glimpse through it--as though through the ages--a younger Gladys, a beautiful silent starlet turned film star changed to the voice of risk itself, assuming the Christ-like role of founder and ideal representative of some controversial movement, some sweet rebellion. Her body is older, but her spirit, a perpetual new-born perspective, climbs out of her mouth, her words take me back to those days.

“The two [Gladys’ career and privileged upbringing] are essentially the same. Growing up here at Harington [Park] was a show in itself. It certainly wasn’t a strict upbringing, oh no! Father, whom I was always closest to, was a poet, as I said before. He had been writing since he was a boy, it took years for him to be recognized though. And mother, as I mentioned in the same story, dropped out of Oxford [University] to follow her dream of dancing. So I was the seed of two romantic artists...to whom my brothers and sisters and I were not employees, no, but, but in a similar vein, hardworking artists...and it was an astounding childhood of imagination. We were all encouraged to do our absolute best, and put all of our energies into what we were creating, for we were expected to create; both father and mother didn’t merely want us to be artists, it was...quite expected of us all to follow an art of some form. But now again, I am straying from my path,” she laughs, “much as I’m akin to doing, I suppose.” Winking, she gets to the point, though I’m not complaining of the deviations, (who can resist such a controversial lady as Gladys blatantly acknowledging the reputation she has gained?!). “Life at home was a role, it prepared me for the path I would eventually carve for myself. Every Thursday evening, at dinner, my siblings and our parents would come down to dinner in a different persona each. Ha, it was some peculiar pageant of make-believe. We’d all done costumes and try our hardest to maintain that guise, that illusion of someone else throughout that evening’s meal. It would be followed by charades in the drawing-room--this drawing-room. We were schooled at home, naturally, for our parents believed in giving us each a more liberal, more artistic education, and it was rigid, but rewarding. Our examinations were not all written, but mainly...performances. And oh, how father and mother took it to heart, so serious. I guess you’ll label that quite unconventional, no, sir?”

I smile, and begin to acknowledge that her childhood was very much like work, albeit an imaginative period of work, but as I consider it, hasn’t Rhys-Bonaventure’s entire life been one unending, imaginative period? The illusion of Thursday dinners at Harington Park is not so distantly mirrored in the illusions of her spontaneous life.

“When it came time for me to leave Harington [Park] for the world, I knew my artistic path was to be in pictures. I chose, initially, to do films, because of its compatibility with my childhood. The biggest similarity between a career such as mine - in acting, entertaining, and living in general, for experience - and my upbringing, was the expectation of...of, consistency. Life here [at Harington Park] was forever a performance, an appearance. It wasn’t like making an appearance at some dinner party, like the ones we had every Thursday--no less in some created character--but as appearing as someone else, all of the time. My childhood was not bad, oh no, but...my parents lived in seclusion, especially a mental seclusion, here. We all did. It was truly our own world. I suppose I have always lived in my own world. So there has never been separation, no division, no border drawn between work and home. Nothing was a job, but nothing was ever a break either. To present the sum of it all, I was acting as a daughter, and acting as a star. There was never any difference. I’ve always been prancing among the meadows of the world in my head, and always, I’ve been running down its primrose paths.”

When asked if such an odd, perhaps, overly-dramatic upbringing had forced her into her career, Gladys replied with a well-timed smile to me, “One should never discern the origin of a masterpiece, but only appreciate the marvel of that beauty’s mystery.”

This is the first of scores of epigrammatic answers Gladys loves to give.

“...and would you not say I am quite the beauty?”

*****

She’s been compared to Oscar Wilde, that British decadent artist, writer, playwright and dandy who spoke constantly in cynical, even cryptic epigrams. She’s been compared also to Arthur Rimbaud, Elizabeth Taylor, Mary Pickford, Gustave Flaubert, William H. Pater, Sarah Bernhard, and countless other actors and auteurs décadente.

Known by critics at the height of her popularity as “that vulgar orange juice heiress”, Gladys Rhys-Bonaventure’s artistic and social pursuits were fuelled undeniably in part by her genetics; her father beginning as an impoverished but aspiring poet, her mother dropping out of university to go after possible success in dancing, and having a strictly imaginative and artsy childhood, Gladys was born into a noble family which lived in its own world. A world Gladys vows to never leave.

The Times of London called her “the decadent lady” in 1933 in recognition of the widespread reputation she was then starting to receive as a “wild child”, a “rebellious daredevil”, a carefree and adventuring young actress. It seemed each week the Living sections of all the British papers were littered with numerous tales, conflicting accounts, and rumours of Rhys-Bonaventure’s propensity for impromptu encounters with artists in all media, in every way. Headlines told of scandalous parties, some said to last twenty-four hours, habitual abuse of numerous substances and questionable conversation. Gladys and her circle of artists were becoming to London that city’s archetype of Bright Young Things. This lifestyle was kept by Gladys for all the years between the World Wars, and after. The conservative press seen her as a threat to the cultural establishment of the day but in reality, as the liberal alternative press had so accurately painted her antics, “Gladys is no less an inspiration to all artists in this nation...she is not a threat to our culture, but the defender of it, preserving it by changing its future.”

Her father was the founder of the highly-profitable orange juice company, Bonaventure Juices, today Bonaventure Beverages, which won the coveted contract in World War Two to provide juice to the British troops fighting on the Continent.

She’s starred, unbelievably, in two-hundred and sixteen films, from silents to blockbusters, to independents and b-movies, going on an indefinite hiatus from the silver screen in 1981.

She has her pilot’s license, though she no longer uses it often.

She’s endorsed everything from face cream to power tools, and if

one thinks the endless reels of films and celebrity endorsements have made her very wealthy, they should reconsider; upon her father’s death in 1967, she inherited the largest chunk of her father’s orange juice fortune--a fund which was at that time in excess of two-hundred and thirty-eight million British pounds. Today, she lives off the few royalties she is able to obtain (motion-picture royalties for actors unfortunately didn’t even exist until near the end of Gladys’ film career), and the remainder of her inheritance. She also still acts as Chairwoman of the Board of Bonaventure Beverages.

She’s been married three times: the first time to her true love, a novelist, her “soul mate” as she still fondly calls him, and two others, a pianist/composer and a painter, her current husband. Roger Irving, the painter, is the great-great grandson of famed American writer Washington Irving and still an avid painter.

She’s been nominated twenty-three times for an Academy Award and won one. Her few, but faithful followers have repeatedly petitioned various halls of fame and institutions to recognize her, but to no fruition. The British peerage (bearers of titles such as Earl) scorn her lifestyle and risk of privileged reputation. You won’t find her star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, nor shelves of biographies about her, nor even many left of her circle. Gladys transcends time and recognition, opting always instead for recognition of her true self.

Rhys-Bonaventure has, in her ninety-seven years, been a silent film star, a Bright Young Thing, a dancer, a stage heroine, a rebellious heiress, a race-car driver, a Hollywood vixen, a pilot, a photographer, a producer, a writer, a lover, a mother, a grandmother, a great-grandmother, and adventurer. Risking everything, least of which reputation and fortune, to accomplish one goal, a goal encompassing not many, but every possible goal: experience. Opinionated, witty, beautiful, shocking, daring, spontaneous, fleeting and puzzling, the “decadent lady”, “that vulgar orange juice heiress”, has lived for pleasure, and still revels in her decadence. Age has never stopped her. Regardless of the time passing around her, or the time changing within her, Gladys is the under-appreciated, now virtually unknown modern superhero.

I was elated to be approached by my editor to do a feature article on her. I had seen many, but not all, of her films and heard some of the rumours still circulating about the legendary Gladys, a noble lady in England whose only moral perception is through art. British journalists have long been wanting to interview her since nineteen eighty-seven, when she decided to not do any more press on account of Gladys wishing to remodel Harington Park and renew her life there (she had been living all over the world, including Paris, Hollywood, New York, New Delhi, Ottawa and even Ulaanbaatar, since she left Harington Park when she was seventeen to star in silent movies). I was chosen for the interview because of my known interest in Gladys. No American publication has pursued her in decades, but with some convincing from Gladys’ grandson, vice-president of Virgin Records, who felt it was due time for his grandmother’s story to be told and her appeal to once again be built-up, this magazine gave me approval, and the Rhys-Bonaventures gave me exclusive access to Gladys (who is almost always surrounded by her family, employees, and close friends).

*****

PART ONE OF THE INTERVIEW

JONATHAN BORDEN:

I’m kind of nervous about being able to speak to you. You’ve been said to have this presence...and there’s your illustrious life and reputation.

GLADYS RHYS-BONAVENTURE:

(smiling) It’s been illustrated as I wanted it to be. (lighting up a cigarette and crossing her legs).

JONATHAN:

You’re no stranger to the media and in the decades of your career you’ve given audience to many journalists, except in the last nineteen years. Could you outline why you stopped giving press? Was it to change direction, move on from celebrity?

GLADYS:

I have since I was a girl of seventeen, been doing everything in my capability to repent. For one, the actual changing of direction is the reward, not the destination that direction leads one.

JONATHAN:

Ah, admission of sin as an explanation?

GLADYS:

(laughing) Never. But an explanation of my sin as an admission, perhaps. To admit in your life the existence of someone seeking the secret of your existence is only at the...right time...to be...be appreciated, and to be obliged. I never minded allowing the world to glimpse me and into me, my life; to vacation inside my world, even if but for an interview. But when I eventually experience a world--and I do say a world, for each thing, each pursuit is a world in itself--I have been...fulfilled. I ceased doing press because pursuing public opinion, and fuelling the fires of curiosity of the masses had been, not too prolonged, but, (she pauses) such an indulgence, an indulgence for both parties--myself and the interviewer, the masses--had been achieved. Many celebrities, especially those from your generation today, complain oh so often of hating the press, of abhorring its persistence, but I learned, no, not learned—sought--to use it to my advantage, to manipulate, through my encounters with it, the perception, the public’s perception of Gladys Rhys-Bonaventure, of women, and of artists. To mould the view of the times I was doing so in. When I felt I had moulded the perception I had desired, there was no need to pursue it further.

JONATHAN:

Because you had by then pursued it--

GLADYS:

Yes.

JONATHAN:

So why pursue the experience again? Why, if at that point you felt you had successfully achieved what you wanted with the public, and the publics’ reactions, did you now decide to go back to it?

GLADYS:

That question was foreseeable (inhaling a cigarette). To return to an experience after making every utilization of it, after exploring all of its boundaries and having pushed those boundaries, for that really is my purpose in everything I do: to exert, (pausing) to wield a form of control, but not so much a control as controlling the perceptions of yourself, but controlling the final perception. I went back to the press, back to you indeed, sir, to offer the world a final glimpse into my world. The same use could of course be made of any experience, I suppose. In the case of drugs, if one had invited themselves to the exploration of such an experience, as frowned upon as it may be, and had found in that experience some value, not only a value of the experience for its own sake--and I do believe all experiences must foremost be had for their own indefinable sake-- but value of the experience for its transcendence of your daily being, if you know to re-experience such a thing, as in the example, drugs, would again even after transcendence offer in an entirely different form again transcendence, of whatever shape you wish to transcend from and to, then you should by all means pursue that experience again. Again I am digressing, but I once again decided to use the press as my outlet of communication of my ideals. My time is waning, I’ll admit that, I’m ninety-seven, and my life is practically full, and if at this age it isn’t, then I have carved for myself the wrong path, as has any person who, in ninety-seven years still hasn’t lived. (smiling) You, my boy, are my voice; this interview is my final letter; not to mere fans, not to historians of culture or even of social anthropology, this I intend as my letter, or epistle of my so-called decadence.

JONATHAN:

Why would an interview, as opposed to the cinema, or television or radio, or even your own writing, be the best choice to communicate this letter of your decadence?

GLADYS:

In order to be heard, I require appeal. That’s how it all works in this industry, indeed, in my life as a child. To create a character for oneself is to wield the weapon of influence. Influence is only achieved if one appeals to the masses, or if not the masses, those you which to influence, in some vein. You should also probably spell that as the other vain - V-A-I-N - because that would seem naturally to reflect my cleverness and my obsession with myself (grinning widely, exhaling smoke).

JONATHAN:

Have you always felt that journalism garners one the appeal they need to influence, the most appeal possible?

GLADYS:

To have philosophical influence, yes. Certainly.

JONATHAN:

Well, you have so far certainly been imparting a lot of your metaphysical impressions of the entertainment media (I smile). Now that such an outlet has been availed, what first would you like to impart in this Epistle of the Decadent Lady?

GLADYS:

That Wildean doctrine of experience. Not wholly devised by Oscar Wilde, of course not, but perfected by him and his circle. In order to understand my life and the message those of you reading this may distill from it, you must know what I live for and how I live.

JONATHAN:

Continue.

GLADYS:

For those not yet versed in what my critics have called decadence, it is to live every moment to the fullest. But not in that dreadful carpe diem sense. It is all about personal transcendence; to overcome the challenges of existing. To become the highest, best individual you can be, intellectually, and spiritually. In the path I made for my pursuit of such a nirvana, I chose, much like last century Pater and his students, including Wilde, did, to worship experience. As an artist, one is employed, not always in the traditional sense of being hired for some fee in return for a beautiful work, but most always in the vein of being employed by one’s own mind to use the body to feed the mind, to nourish the starving soul. Experience is an exercise in consumption. It is an all-encompassing exercise in that it works, if had properly, all of the senses, and each of the emotions on our personal spectrums; each aspect of ones existence should be tested by each experience.

JONATHAN:

And by experience, you refer to, generally, any encounter with something not previously encountered? In other words, trying to fill your life’s dance card with as many new experiences as possible?

GLADYS:

That quite succinctly expresses it. Yes. And I have, to use that wonderful anaology, quite filled my dance card (smiling, smoking).

JONATHAN:

So, when you left Harington Park at seventeen to carve your path through life, did you have a list of experiences to achieve, a to-do, or to-try list?

GLADYS:

Only mentally. I had the full support of my parents, they were quite, hmm, quite Bohemian in their views as well as I. As you’ll describe to the readers, my upbringing was overly artistic and taught me the precepts of such experiential values, so to me it wasn’t my radical or unique view of how to live my life, but values I very willingly took from my parents. Though, out of my siblings and I, I was the only one to take such a route as I did. A sort of black sheep, if you could believe it, coming from such a loose home as mine, one of us could actually be considered the different one, the rebel. That Luciferian subtext fares well to be words coming from my mouth, describing me. (hearty laughter) I set out with but one intent: to experience every experience possible. Or at least those that I could devise. I saw participating in the then still-fairly-new, vulgar business of making pictures as the perfect stepping stone to widespread distribution of my presence--it had never been before so capable of being done--and thereby, a means of gathering some following, or being introduced to people with similar views. I don’t know. At the time, and we’re talking around nineteen twenty-six, I had this notion of taking over London with experience. I envisioned, quite wickedly, a city which would, after I got hold of it, be teeming with artists, dandies, rebels, everywhere. Now, I didn’t get that, but I was correct in finding a jumpstart into the art world.

JONATHAN:

Could any jumpstart that London offered really even exceed that provided by your zany parents here at Harington?

GLADYS:

Harington Park has always been a different world. In nineteen twenty-six, London was the whole world. Oh, home prepared me for only one possible life, that of an artist, and if not a position of that stature, then at the very least, I had been prepared to become a provocateur.

JONATHAN:

Now that the back-story has been established, and that you’ve taken the story to the London of the roaring twenties, what ended up being your first major experience, the first experience to count toward your transcendence?

GLADYS:

(tapping cigarette) My transcendence began with my first audition at Hewitt-Edison [a London branch of the famous, pioneering film company founded in America by Thomas Edison at the turn of the twentieth century] that year, nineteen twenty-six. I must have been the most confident girl there that day. I had walked in and was told to wait. I had gone in response to an open call for female players in some new picture, a silent cinematic retelling of the Jason and the Argonauts myth. What they wanted were young teen girls to play the sirens and sea nymphs. I sat there, waiting in the front room of Hewitt-Edison, deciding. ‘Now, Gladys, you’re not leaving here without some part in this production. This experience will set all others in motion. You could settle for sea nymph, but why, when you could star, as Jason,’ I said in my head to myself. I decided to design some conquest to capture that film and make it my own. I waited three and a half hours. Most every girl waiting had auditioned but been rejected. Then, when called, I strutted in, wearing my flapper dress no less! And I said nothing. The director, James Ivory? Yes, James Ivory, he was conducting the auditions, and he looked so cross, even more so when I failed to respond to his generic questions as to my age, height, weight, acting experience. Instead of answering, and thereby being to him just another ambitious, inexperienced girl, I acted. Now, I had never before appeared in a picture, but it was, as the ad said, to be a silent production, so I stood there in silence, emoting as dramatically as any tragedienne Ivory had ever seen on stage. And it’s interesting now to note that at that time, I had no formal acting experience, least of which on stage. This was my first public role. I did the traditional star-process in reverse. I ended up getting the role, originally of a sea nymph, but then I demanded to be Jason, so I played in drag for my first time on film, then years later, I debuted on stage. My first experience--my first public risk--was in that audition room that day. Though it was only minor, a small act of defiance by not speaking and getting right to the point of acting, I went against the grain of the others that day. I silently portrayed Desdemona in Othello. Now, without costume and without prior knowledge in my audience, the director, of this, it was difficult and even ill-fated to attempt, no less in silence! But what James Ivory witnessed that day was not merely some strange spectacle of facial expression, but beyond that perplexing façade, as girl who knew what she wanted, and who, in attempt to experience all she could, a girl possessed of the perfect confidence required for a starring role.

JONATHAN:

So your first experience to knock off your list of risks was a pretentious interview of sorts?

GLADYS:

(laughing loudly) Yes. It was a muted acciaccatura preceding the upcoming notes of my thunderously-loud career.

END OF PART ONE OF THE INTERVIEW

(SEE NEXT MONTH’S ISSUE FOR THE CONCLUSION OF THE EXCLUSIVE GLADYS RHYS-BONAVENTURE INTERVIEW)

*****

Jonathan Borden is a freelance rock journalist who frequently writes for Rolling Stone, Spin, Blender, and Billboard. He has also contributed to Variety, Hollywood’s industry standard in entertainment news. He lives in Ottawa, Canada.

*****

FACTSHEET OF DECADENCE

FULL NAME:Gladys Alexandra Rhys-Bonaventure

NICKNAMES, TITLES:Lady (title); The Decadent Lady, The Vulgar Ornage Juice Heiress, Gladdie, Garb (nicknames)

HEIGHT:5’9”

WEIGHT:144lbs.

BIRTHDAY:April 9, 1909

BIRTHPLACE: Harington Park, Camdenshire, England

PARENTS:Lord Oliver Bonaventure, seventh Earl of Camdenshire, founder of Bonaventure Juices (now Bonaventure Beverages); and Alexandra Rhys, daughter of the sixth Earl of Camdenshire, acclaimed dancer

EDUCATION:Home-schooled by parents at Harington Park

SPOUSE(S):(1) Patrick Dodgson, poet/novelist who Gladys still considers to be her first and forever true love; and (2) Martin Hampton, pianist/composer who Gladys cheated on during WWII, and he on her at the same time; and (3) Roger Irving, painter who is the great-great grandson of American writer Washington Irving, is Gladys’ current husband

CHILDREN:5; 3 sons, 2 daughters

CAREER(S), OCCUPATION(S):silent film star, Bright Young Thing, dancer, stage heroine, rebellious heiress, race-car driver, Hollywood vixen, pilot, photographer, producer, writer, adventurer

SELECTED FILMOGRAPHY:Jason and the Argonauts – 1926, Jude’s Fire – 1930, The Tempest – 1932, Jazzman – 1932, Pandora’s Box – 1940, Ice on His Brow – 1944, Hark! The Temptress Speaks! – 1947, Solomon and Sheba – 1950, Trembling Lillies – 1962, Idaho is Sinking – 1969, The Widow’s Strife – 1972, Avenue Macabre – 1974, Did You Get My Name? – 1974, Black Widow Bites – 1976, Mitchfield Abbey – 1981

Assessment Tool for Prose Writing

Adapted from the APEF Grade 12 Exam, Mr. Steven Van Zoost

Thought & Detail:

Excellent: 5 points

Insightful ideas are supported by carefully chosen evidence and/or details.

Proficient: 4 points

Thoughtful ideas are supported by appropriate evidence and/or details OR conventional ideas are supported by carefully considered evidence and/or ideas.

Acceptable: 3 points

Relevant ideas are supported by purposefully chosen evidence and/or ideas.

Limited: 2 points

Superficial ideas are weakly supported.

Poor: 1 point

Unsupported generalities and details do not develop theme.

Organization:

Excellent: 5 points

Introduction is skillfully constructed to provide direction for reader & to provoke further reading. Controlling idea is sustained & developed in a clear, purposeful manner. Closing is related thoughtfully & effectively to theme.

Proficient: 4 points

Introduction is competently constructed to provide direction for reader. Controlling idea is focused & generally sustained; development of theme is clear & coherent. Closing is related effectively to theme.

Acceptable: 3 points

Introduction is constructed to provide general direction for reader. Focus of controlling theme is clear but coherence may falter. Closing related functionally to topic.

Limited: 2 points

Introduction, if present, related in minimal way to rest of piece. Focused idea is lacking or not maintained. Ideas not clearly developed. Closing, although present, is not functional in that it does not unify the whole or vaguely relates to opening.

Poor: 1 point

Introduction, if present, is not functional in that it neither relates to, nor controls the rest of the piece. A controlling idea is lacking; topic is not developed or is developed incoherently. Closing, if present, is either inappropriate or unconnected.

Matters of Correctness:

Excellent: 5 points

Writing demonstrates confident control of correct sentence construction, usage & mechanics. Relative absence of error is impressive considering the complexity of response & the circumstances.

Proficient: 4 points

Writing demonstrates competent control of correct sentence construction, usage, & mechanics. Minor errors are acceptable and understandable considering the circumstances.

Acceptable: 3 points

Writing demonstrates satisfactory control of correct sentence construction, usage, & mechanics. There may be minor errors in usage & mechanics. However, the communication remains clear.

Limited: 2 points

Writing demonstrates faltering control of correct sentence construction, usage & mechanics. Range of sentence construction errors and errors in usage and/or mechanics blurs clarity of communication.

Poor: 1 point

Writing demonstrates lack of control of correct sentence construction, usage, & mechanics. Unclear & incorrect sentence construction & jarring errors in usage & mechanics make communication impossible.

Matters of Choice: (Voice& Style)

Excellent: 5 points

Choices contribute to skillful composition. Diction is precise & specific. Syntactical structures are effective & sometimes polished. Stylistic choices contribute to fluent & confident composition.

Proficient: 4 points

Choices contribute to considered composition. Diction is specific & effective. Syntactical structures are generally effective. Stylistic choices contribute to confident composition.

Acceptable: 3 points

Choices contribute to conventional composition. Diction is adequate but may be lacking in specificity. Syntactical structures are generally straightforward, but attempts at more complex structures may be awkward. Stylistic choices contribute to clear composition.

Limited: 2 points

Choices contribute to weak composition. Diction is imprecise and/or inappropriate. Syntax is frequently awkward and/or immature. Writing may be vague, redundant, and/or unclear. Inadequate repertoire of language choices contributes to limited composition.

Poor: 1 point

Choices contribute to a very weak composition. Diction is over -generalized and/or inadequate. Syntax is confusing & uncontrolled. Writing is unclear. Lack of language choices contributes to a poor composition.

Total Mark 19 / 20

�Jonathan – I changed the font for my reading purposes and to clean-up some of the line spacing issues that were occurring between 1 or 1.5 spacing.

�This reminds me of a published journalist’s style: Lucy Kaylin in GQ’s Cover Story “American Idol” in June 2005 edition. The article interviews Brad Pitt, a recent bachelor. See me or the library if you’re interested in reading her style.

�This internal reflection is lovely and much more developed in this section than in the interview section that comes later. I think you might want to make changes to J’s diction in his interview questions below to match the level of vocabulary we know he is capable of using as demonstrated in this paragraph.

�This witty tongue in cheek approach to G’s character reminds me of Sharon Stone characters.

�Nice word choice here to imply her acting life continues to spill out into all of her worlds.

�Again, I enjoy the playful twists of words here, combining her juice inheritance to other worlds. This subtle diction is what establishes you as a writer who is in control of his voice and does not force descriptions as much as enjoys them.

�This paragraph swirls back as a summary of details previously introduced which I’m not sure is consistent with the persona of Jonathan. J seems to be edgy and assumes his readers can keep up with the fast-paced and quick wit of G. I think you “break character” here by providing a “review section.” Instead I think you should focus on why she is a superhero to J without revisiting the aforementioned details of her life.

�This is not consistent with the impressions of J in the first section. Instead, more of an honour about being able to interview G is conveyed and an admiration of her home. I was surprised by J’s opening line of the interview.

�This is not unexpected from G because of your earlier vocabulary signals of different and connected worlds (e.g. see comments above about “acting” and “fruition”.

�Here, I feel a bot of Wilde’s influence on G’s character.

�This sentence needs some guidance. While I have enjoyed your other ROS for character purposes, this one seems to belittle G a bit too much by suggesting that she is incapable of capturing her ideas into bite-size witty thoughts (including tightly woven clauses) that both entertain and intellectual tease her audience. Consider re-visiting this sentence structure.

�Here, G reminds me Madonna, especially in her ability to be media-savvy.

�Notice the complicated syntax of J’s question here as opposed to the previous question. Watch for character continuity perhaps by reading though only what J says (or thinks) in one reading.

�This is a tricky word that needs a bit more unpacking to fully understand your intent. Think about “consumerism” as part of the modern world’s preoccupation (or at least dominant Western discourse) with the consumption of material goods. Because you are writing from within such contexts, you need to explicate how this word is used differently here by G, regardless of her age and times. I think you are using reference here to consumption as digestion, but it remains vague.

�Great character point here as G TELLS J what he will write/do.

�Watch character continuity here.

�Here, I feel as though G is the sister of Ms. Havisham from Great Expectations!