The choice of the talk-show format came from various impulses and interests. As a means of publicly “talking about dance” for a dancer, the usual format is the post-show Q & A, where suddenly the dancers you just saw on stage in what was perhaps a transformative experience—where the usual precepts of “reality” are suspended by mutual agreement between performers and audience—are now sitting in front of you, being asked questions, and in a casual way, explaining how what had happened on stage came to be. This unmasking of something often ineffable intrigued me for its odd yet usefully accessible nature. Also, the popular TV talk-show format that we are collectively familiar with is certainly a place where truth-seeking, the testimonial, the confession, showmanship, and “edutainment” all collide. It is left to us to sort through it all to work out what simultaneous realities are at play. This appealed to me as a mischievous way of sharing my personal story in Fluency while at the same time allowing other voices to give testimonials. By opening and exposing the creative modus operandi this way, I deliberately put myself through a creative and personal trial, intently raising my artistic stakes. Of course, this co-relates to my opening and exposing myself to the phenomena of Nicaragua and the Spanish language in my process of “becoming Nicaraguan”.

As a theatre artist, it was difficult for me to deal with dramatically different kinds of delivery systems for the ideas I wanted to put out there, and then have these modes work together in the same moment. For instance, I am mostly dancing as a way of communication and being present on stage, trusting a stream-of-consciousness spontaneity, whereas Billy Marchenski (as the talk-show host) is speaking and analyzing based on a prescribed line of thinking, evincing a well-rehearsed body language that is about showmanship. It's a strange "conversation" to be sure. Billy and I are further at odds because I am a believer based on direct personal experience whereas Billy is a sometimes derisive skeptic armed with rational analysis. Also, as I look at the video, I think that I am like a shaman, connecting and mediating different realms, which in its own way, is like what a translator does. One of my favorite moments in the work is when Billy seems to "get it", understanding the social experiment of becoming Nicaraguan as part of a larger movement towards cultivating empathy that will heal fractures between people, species and Nature.

One of the things that were hard for me was actually putting myself through some pointed cross-examination on stage regarding my ideas about Nicaragua. Billy asks me if I am a dilettante and a collector of foreign cultures because of my aspiration to become a member of a culture to which I don't belong. Indeed, this might well be asked of me, and certainly the premise of "becoming Nicaraguan" was intended to be a little outrageous and provocative, and could be read in several different ways, some easier to accept than others. I thought that creating this tension between modes of expression would be a good catalyst for revealing the deeper proposals beyond the surface that I wanted to explore.

In a way, Billy became an embodiment of some of the nagging questions and doubts that I experienced in researching and creating this work, where status-quo systems and conventional ways of thinking around me and within me were telling me that it was politically incorrect or unrealistic to propose this goal of “becoming Nicaraguan”. Ultimately, I think that this self-imposed trial led to some important insights for me that I didn’t have at the beginning of the process, and in this way, the whole enterprise has been a transformation and an important phase in the ongoing process of becoming for me.

Writing this makes me connect with what María Constanza wrote above about “creating characters out of our own selves,” when she goes on to say, “I created a character that had my name, that in a way was me. But what was I? Who am I as I embark on this experiment?” When I was on stage, I was being myself and bringing my particular experiences into the composition called Fluency, but I was also inhabiting a certain “character” through whom I felt it was safe to expose myself to a kind of public examination that would hopefully lead to valuable insights that would be more universal.