Quite the little soap opera was going on yesterday when some less than pleasant comments about Dana's Seussical were posted by someone who had seen it. I'm not going to go into specifics. Well, maybe not, but there are several things that the situation got me to think about, and I feel like discussing them here.
I've come to the conclusion that there are, in fact, invalid opinions. Let's say, for instance that I state that I do not like Johnny because Johnny has brown hair. I would have to say that this is an invalid opinion because the color of Johnny's hair has no indication on Johnny's personality. Saying that I do not like an entire person because of one small aspect, is not a valid opinion. Hell, if I don't like Johnny because he has brown hair, but Johnny, in fact has red hair, then the opinion is even more invalid than before because the reasoning is false or illogical.
So I guess what I'm getting at is that an opinion has to have some sort of reasoning behind it in order for it to be a valid opinion. Sure, everyone can have an opinion, but not every opinion is a valid one. If the resaoning behind the opinion is flawed, so is the opinion, and thus could be described as a stupid opinion and discounted in any further discussions.
Also, Live Journals are private things. They are where people go to express their innermost feelings, and NOT places where they should be harrassed and attacked. Comments are all good and fine,as are questions and clarifications. But I have to say that outright attacks are way out of line. In my comment to the said LJ author, I asked for further clarification, and did my best not to attack. I said that from what she posted that people would assume things about her and that further making her opinion clear (with reasoning) would make things easier for people to understand. Well, I didn't outright say all that, but that's what I intended. I may have been percieved to be attacking, but that was not my intention at all.
My, I had no idea I was so infamous at South High school already. I've been there once, and have actively hung out with people from there for a time period of less than a month and yet it seems all these people I've never met know of me. Interesting. I don't know if its a bad thing that my infamy is well spread, or if I should be proud that I can have such a wide range of influence . . . But hey, I'm a Leo, and I love attention, whatever its form.
Is calling someone immature or childish, the big putdown at South high? Ok, so I've only seen it from two people, but they tend to use it like it is the absolute worst thing they can say. Personally, I would much rather be called immature than an idiot. I also find it interesting that the only people I know so concerned with maturity levels are middle school and high school kids I know. NOt just from south, but old high school friends and siblings as well. Its as though they want to be considered adults sooooo bad, that they think by saying other people are more childish somehow elevates them and makes them feel more adult. Which, the more I think about it, exemplifies the meaning of immaturity. Just to make sure I'm not making a fool out of myself, I just looked up the meanings of both "immature" and "childish" on dictionary.com. Immature simply refers to anything underdeveloped or unarrived at perfection. Well, I don't see how any person can actually attain perfection, so everyone is immature in that sense. Also, as for development, its a fact that college students are physically more developed than teens going through puberty, so in that sense, it doesn't make any sense either. Of course I'm sure the reference is made towards personality. So an underdeveloped personality is a big put down at South, apperantly. You know, that actually does seem more offending than I thought it would. But what are the standards for a fully-developed personality? That would require more investigation and discussion than I have the patience for at the time, so let's move on to "childish", which describes weakness, simpleness, and a lack of maturity. And that pretty much brings us right back to "immature". So yeah, constant banter about who's more mature than who just seems silly to me as everyone has different ideas about what fully-developed personalities are. Ironically, the very striving for acceptance into adulthood implies that one is NOT an adult, and thus immature in that aspect. I've also heard "immature" used several times recently to describe emotional behavior. I suppose that adults are better equipped to controlling their visible expression of emotions (i.e. concealing them), but by the same token, a lack of emotions is also a sign of an under-developed personality as emotions are largely what determines how we act and think, which is the basis of our own individual personalities. Bottom line: banter back and forth about maturity is pointless and irrelevant to most arguments.
Four offended individuals at Dana College does not equate to the entire college being whiny and pissy and hostile. There are, after all, nearly 700 people here. To make a generalization based on the actions of such a small minority is silly at best. Hell, to make a generalization about an entire person based on their reaction to being attacked or to having their friend attacked is likewise silly. Thus, to make such a generalization on 700+ people based on 0.57% of the population's provoked reaction to hostility borders on ridiculous.
And finally, JP has this amazing ability to shrug off stupidity and not let it bother him. I REALLY wish that I could do that. Hell, if everyone could, the world would be a much better place. I'm working on it, I really am. I just feel this impulse to defy stupidity at every turn. It doesn't solve anything, and accomplishes nothing but giving me a headache. JP is absolutely right that the ill-worded, poorly reasoned opinion of a teenage girl should not affect anyone here at Dana college. IT should be noted, and then dismissed as the drivel it is. She has yet to comment on the performace other than Joe is fat, Kirk's costume looked funny, and the set was unsatisfactory. Life would be so much less enjoyable for me if I took everything at face value like that. It truly is a shame that some people think that way.
As for my own personal thoughts on the show, I think that the set really isn't anything special. We've had better in the past, but this one seems rather . . . simple, I suppose. There's not much to it. The way the show has been directed, the emphasis is more on performances than sets and props, however, so it works for the show. It's nothing great. It's just kinda there. The show itself, I find rather irritating as it seems to be directed towards little children. It presents some good moral and philospohical points, but does so in a silly manner that children are entertained by. The simplistic themes are used again and again and again. Some are more effective than others. I guess I'm just not much of a fan on things directed towards small children. It doesn't stimulate me intellectually or even grab my interest to have everything presented to me in that fashion. I'm far from a fan of the show, but I have to say that it grew on me. I enjoy the energy that the performance demads out of me. It really excites me to bounce around stage. And while I was surprised at the casting at first, after thinking about it, I can't imagine it working any other way. Everyone assumed that I would be the Cat in the Hat before auditions solely because I fit everyone's pre-determined mental image of the character better than anyone else. Joe's Cat, while forcing the audience to re-evaluate their preconcieved expectations of the character's appearance, performs the part better than I ever could. The Cat is silly, comic relief. No one does comic relief better than Joe. His imagination and sense of humor fit the Cat completely. After watching him perform, I honestly can't think of anyone who fits the part better. I understand how having something appear contrary to your expectations can bother some people. But Seussical is all about using your imagination; both in story and production. If one doesn't complain that one of the Whos towers over anyone else in the cast, why would they be sooo bothered that the other characters are not size-proportioned? I just don't understand it.
Eric 10/11/2004 11:38:00 AM
