A Candid interview with Dane

A peek into the inner workings of Dane's mind, provided by me, Oreo. If any other RAs wish to be interviewed PLEASE message me. Or I'll probably message you first. Either way.

Anyway, enjoy!

Let us begin!

Q: What is your full name and date of birth?

Dane Alexander Holding / January 5, 1988

Q: What inspired you to become an RA?

My sister is actually an off again on again instructor for Crafting the Essay first session at LOS. She started working as an RA in either LAN or JHU, so, when I'd mentioned that I needed a summer job, she suggested that I work as an RA for CTY.

Q: Whoaaa, is her name Danette Holding?

Her name is actually Cory, unfortunately. It would be weird if she were named Danette, because she was born before me. I would hate to be her male derivative.

Q: How does it feel to be consecrated in CTY history FOREVER? And how did you do it?

It's hard to answer this question because I don't really want to sound narcissistic, because right now I'm ambivalent about my quasi-fame. Back when people screamed "Hi Dane" every time people walked by me it was pretty irritating. Luckily that's toned down since 2008-2009, and I can live my life without being perpetually badgered by students.

I think the reason that I became CTY famous was by befriending a number of traditionalists the first year, most notably a gentleman by the name of Van Melikian. I think he was almost the sole driving force behind the initial "Hi Dane" movement. Other than that, I ran a couple of activities that were well received, like "The Gulag" and "Battle Royale," both of which are now out of rotation largely due to the "no throwing things at people" rules. I also ran "Bananaphone Appreciation" for the first time ever second session in 2008, which was also remarkably well received by the students who participated.

tldr: I made friends with the right people and ran some cool activities.

This gentleman on television is wearing a single hulk hand.

Q: What are your reasons behind nixing Bananarchy? Do you LIKE tearing apart tradition?

Truth? I was bored with it. It's not like it's a difficult thing to run, so if another staffer had felt passionately about it they easily could have run the exact same activity that I had.

I would have happily run it if a large group of students had pushed me to do so. After all, the program needs to cater to the students. As it stood, only you and Stella [Jensen-Roberts] showed strong interest in seeing it run again, and I'm not going to run an activity if only two students are really excited about it.

Another issue I saw with Bananarchy is that it's an activity that relies primarily on surprise, and you can't surprise students and staffers who have seen you run an activity every session for four years. If you let it go for a year, it helps to revitalize to a certain extent.

When I run the same activities over and over and over again, they tend to stagnate or I grow bored with it, which can cause me to be lazy in both preparation for and operation of the activity. If I try and bring in new and exciting activities, I keep up my own interest in the program which keeps up my level of energy when I run them. It's sort of selfish, but I wouldn't want to subject 30-40 students to an activity that requires a lot of energy when I'm not willing to run it with the same level of passion that I might have a few years ago, because that cheats you guys out of a daily that might otherwise be spent in another awesome activity.

So here's my philosophy on tradition. I think that, ultimately, every camp experience should be unique. Every year, tens of new staffers and hundreds of new campers come to the LMU CTY site, and if, instead of accepting their new ideas and allowing the program to grow, we fetter them with a bunch of old traditions and ideas and explanations of how things were and how things should work, we aren't succeeding in our mission to create an environment in which everyone's thoughts and ideas are valuable. Sure, some of them might not be as effective as past ideas, but without trying something new, the program would never grow in any kind of meaningful way. This doesn't mean that I don't think that traditions should have a place in the grand scape of CTY, I just think that, as a group, CTY students and staff alike should always be looking towards innovating within the program.

So instead of giving that daily slot to Banarchy, I chose something else. Who knows, maybe I'll get nostalgic and run it next year. Or, if there's a strong interest from the students, I will run it.

After all, this is just as much the student's program as it is mine, if not more so. I'd be willing to listen to any suggestions students might have in regards to activities.

Wow, that was actually convincing!

Q: Which session do you prefer?

I'm going to preface this by saying that it has nothing to do with the students at the site.

I feel like both sessions have their perks, but on the whole I tend to have more energy to invest into activities during first session. The added fatigue of having already done 3 weeks tends to wear on my overall performance by second session. So with that in mind, I tend to favor first session because I don't feel like passing out every moment of the day.

However, the staff tends to have developed a better dynamic and a better understanding of how the site works by second session, which can be a huge boon to the way in which the site operates. If there's a way in which second session is superior from a staff perspective, it's that.

Q: In your opinion, who was a worse Tsar, Nicholas I or Nicholas II? Have there been any good Tsars?

Let me preface this by saying that, in order to be Tsar of Russia, you have to do some questionable things. Nicholas I was quite nefarious; but even if he lost the Crimean War terribly at least he was somewhat effective. He made the effort; which is way more than I can say for Nicholas II.

Nicholas II, in contrast, sat on his hands while hundreds of thousands of Russian peasants were slaughtered on the war front and his country was slowly picked apart by Revolutionary parties. He wrote journal entries about birds and tea while his entire empire crumbled around him. Sure, he tried to go and take direct control of Russian forces, but in the meantime he left his country in the hands of Alexandra and Rasputin, both of whom ran the country into the ground. Things had gotten so out of hand that even the likes of Witte and Stolypin couldn't save the country at that point.

And as far as "good Tsars" go, I'm not really too convinced that you could pick one out and say that they were innately "good." Alexander II certainly seemed to harbor some good intentions; for instance he liberated the serfs and reformed army protocol. Peter the Great did a lot that seems nefarious through a twentieth century lens, but at the same time he had the somewhat noble intention to bring Russia up to snuff with the rest of Russia. Did he institute ridiculous things like "The Beard Tax," in the interest of the rest of Europe? Yes. Was his heart in the right place and is he generally viewed as one of the great Russian Tsars? I believe so.

Q: Do you think oatmeal cookies should be outlawed at LMU?

Absolutely. They are the worst crime ever perpetrated against humanity.

That's meant to be hyperbolic, by the way.

Ok, last question.

Q: If you were to conquer LMU, which dorm would be your fortress, which two RAs (one male, one female) would you enlist, and which buildings would you seize first?

The obvious fortress choice would be Rosecrans, because it's built like an indecipherable labyrinth. If you close the door to the stairs no invading force would be able to get to the second or third floors. The minotaur that probably roams the halls would be a nice defense as well.

If I were to choose two RA's to help me, they would be Levon and Amy.

Early campaigns would be waged against Desmond and Huesman, due to their proximity to Rosecrans. Huesman would serve as a staging point for an assault against Doheny and Sullivan, and I guess I would move on to the academic buildings from there.

Thank you, Dane, for humoring me!