VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:38:53 05/23/02 Thu
Author: Wakener
Subject: Re: I guess we'll see, won't we? I still believe you're dead wrong
In reply to: Hobsonphile 's message, "I guess we'll see, won't we? I still believe you're dead wrong" on 01:48:50 05/19/02 Sun

>>>Like it or not, it's in the character's history now,
>and can't be brushed off so lightly.<<
>
>Indeed. So let's look at the history of the other
>characters, shall we? A quick summary reveals quite a
>bit of human frailty.

Why look at the other characters? We were talking about Scott. The only reason to look at the other characters in the context of this discussion is if you plan to employ a "straw man" fallacy.

[snip the history lesson, 98% of which I'll stipulate]
>
>ALL of the characters have less than attractive
>moments in their histories- some are even technically
>criminal. ALL of them are flawed. And yet, these
>characters are loved by many.

I am not "many." I am me. Where have you seen *me* defend any of the things you list? I agree with your criticisms, all of which are beside the point. You still can't pick and choose historical events. You wanted to say that something you felt was out of character for Scott "didn't count" for lack of a better term. I'm just saying that everything he has done, well-written or not, is "canonical." Pointing out that other teachers have done bad things doesn't change the fact that Scott acted the way he did toward the debate team. And I never said that I offered a pass to any of the teachers for their misdeeds, so don't lump me in with this "many." Finally, in defense of the "many," you equate liking the characters with excusing their actions. I'm sure you know better. I love Hans Gruber from _Die Hard,_ but I don't excuse his actions. Some characters are interesting *because* of their unpleasant qualities. Dr. Romano on "ER" is a perfect example.

Steven and Marla are
>also favorite characters of mine. Perfection is not
>the standard I use to decide whom to like.

I never said it should be. I never said it was for me, either. Do you have some kind of qualitative mold you are trying to pigeonhole me into so that you can go to a standard set of criticisms? You'll need another one. I don't seem to fit. I'm a little more complex than I seem to be getting credit for here.

Every
>human being in the world has bad days, says things he
>or she shouldn't say, does things he or she shouldn't
>do.

If you had extended just that much latitude to Lauren-lizz, we wouldn't be having this discussion (for better or worse). She said something you didn't agree with in a way you found objectionable and *chose* to construe as a personal dig. She's not perfect, either. How come *she* got it with both barrels?

>
>>>Which, if you ask me, was not a wise thing to do.
>For the BRAT to even be put in a position to show him
>up...what's that? Oh...you didn't ask me.<<
>
>Okay, who put Lisa in charge of the Shakespeare class?
> And who put Scott in there with her, even though
>Scott pointed out that his schedule was extremely
>booked up and he probably wouldn't have time to
>prepare? Think real hard. The responsibility for
>that situation DOES NOT fall entirely on Scott's
>shoulders. Try to be fair.

Oh, I'm not blaming Scott for this. I'm just pointing out that the entire situation undermined the authority structure in the classroom, and Scott should never have been put into a classroom position which undermined his authority as instructor. What I referred to as a bad idea was his giving her the pat on the back. It reinforced and sanctioned the Brat's position as a usurper of authority. It's the same principle as in military service--the Captain does not chew out or discipline the platoon sergeant in front of the troops, even if the platoon sergeant is wrong. More on point, the sergeant does not correct the Captain in front of the men, even if the Captain is wrong. And if that ever happens, the Captain does NOT pat the sergeant's back for it.

Of course, these days, the entire concept of authority orientation has gone the way of the tyrannosaurus and the dodo--especially where kids are concerned.
>
>>>Well, you know...first of all, I didn't say that.<<
>
>You listed his fainting among other incidents as
>evidence of Scott being weak. So forgive me if I
>interpreted that to mean that socially awkward = weak.

I know a number of socially awkward people. To the best of my knowledge, none of them has ever fainted at the prospect of a date.
>
>>>Finished? Good. When have you seen *ME* defend any
>of this? Finished? Good. By the way...guys like Harry"
>can do no wrong" because they're seen as "cool?"
>Puh-leeeeez! If it were up to me, Harry would never
>have been in Chapter 2.<<
>
>I've never seen any posts from you that declare that
>Harry shouldn't be liked or admired by his fans (of
>which there are many).

You've never seen me post that Hershey Neo-waves are one fabulous ice cream sandwich, either, but that doesn't mean I don't think so. You've never seen me post that SCOTT shouldn't be liked or admired by *his* fans, either--of which there are many, I'm sure. He's an interesting character. I never said that a character can't be developed as a weak person and still be interesting. The more character types you have, the more dynamics you can play with. Guber is by no means one-dimensional (like, say, the socially awkward "Q" type guy on Alias (anyone see the finale of that? Seems Joey Slotnick won't be coming back next season on that show)).

But I'll tell you something else you didn't see--you didn't see anybody subjected to unwarranted invective because they *didn't* see the appeal of Senate, or were vocal about not sharing the taste of his fans. *That's* what got me to speak up. I don't care what characters anyone likes or dislikes. I just saw somebody wrinkling her nose at Scott, get flamed for it, and then people rushing in to toast marshmallows over the flames. I didn't like seeing that. I'm not fond of watching people get picked on, especially for voicing their opinion in a chat forum.

And the tone of your posts
>suggests that you find something uniquely horrible in
>Scott's flaws. So forgive me again if I perceive a
>double-standard.

Don't worry--I have plenty of criticism for other characters, too. There just hasn't been as glaring an occasion upon which to share it. I'm not going to write about every other character as much as I've written about Scott in this thread--I do have to eat, you know. My documented criticisms of Scott just happen to stem from the fact that he represents in a number of respects, what has been called by some "the Feminization of the American male." I noted just from watching fan bases on some other TV shows known for very active fandom (including, but not limited to, the 5 Star Trek series, Highlander, Dark Shadows (both), Babylon 5 et al), that it is a character like this who seems to elicit the most active, loyal--and vocal female fandom. I don't agree that the "feminization" process is positive overall. For that reason, I have been known to criticize traits which exemplify this. By no means should you construe such criticism as tacit approval of every other character.
>
>>>I'm not "small." Nothing anyone says can grind me
>down
>and make me that way.<<
>
>Congratulations for making it to this stage. It is my
>hope that my brother will one day come to this
>realization as well. But I don't withhold my
>compassion for somebody because they haven't "made it"
>yet.

The implication here is that you want to give another whack to see if you can get me to fit in that mold I mentioned earlier. Here--how about an even nastier way to look at me in the implied contrast to this statement. I don't withhold my compassion in said situation, either. I had all my compassion surgically removed several years ago, so I have none for anyone anyway (hence, I can't withhold it, and I'm a mean heartless brute (I even killed that tiny dwarf when I played Zork)). Happy?
>
>>>I didn't say the objection was negated. I'm just
>saying that it was delivered in a weak manner by a
>weak individual. I feel the same way about a woman who
>"fake numbers" a person, rather than saying, "Not
>interested," or "Take a hike." The objection is there
>in any case--but strength of character? Only in two of
>'em.<<
>
>To be blunt, that's a piss-poor analogy for the
>situation.

Well, since I wasn't creating an analogy, that's allowed. I was stating an isopathism. But let's see what you've got.

A better one would be to compare a woman
>who mumbles "Not interested" and walks away versus a
>woman who looks a guy right in the eye and says "Not
>interested." The first shows a little less
>confidence, but the character is still there.

Well, I've never met the first woman. I've never met any invisible purple unicorns, either, but I suppose that's no reason to conclude they can't exist. What's to be "confident" or "not confident" about in that situation? She knows whether she wants the guy or not, yes? She's confident that she doesn't want to date him in either case, correct? The contrast there is between levels of emotional strength--the second woman has more of it than the first. Well, I'd say the same thing about Scott Guber. The only thing is, depending on the context of the situation, Scotty-boy can be either one. The second one is almost always within the context of school duties; the first, within the context of private social relationships.

Watch
>the scene again. When pressed, Scott told her exactly
>why he was going home alone- and, by the way, he
>looked her right in the eye as he delivered his
>assessment of what happened with Jeremy and Brooke.
>He only turned away after that assessment had been
>made. Yes, there was some hesitance, but in the end
>he was completely honest with Meredith. He didn't
>"fake number" her- "fake numbering" implies
>dishonesty. And in the entire relationship, I can
>think of no instance when Scott didn't tell Meredith
>exactly what he thought.

Now, try contrasting the sleeping alone scene with another--the scene where he fires her. You have two completely different Scotts. The second Scott was completely backed up by the book--and he painstakingly gathered the evidence from every source he could open to him (despite that it meant putting himself in a position where certain people could easily have made mockery of him--this is a point in his favor). Maybe you can look at it in a super-hero analogy--Scott Guber as Iron Man. Being Iron Man is not a bad thing. Being Tony Stark is not a bad thing. But as Iron Man, he's a vastly different fellow. Iron Man's suit backs him up. The laws and regs back Scott up.
>
>>>Once again, you attribute an attitude to me which I
>have not expressed. In precisely which characters do I
>"assume" better motivations...and when do I do so?<<
>
>All right, my mistake. But you certainly assume a
>great deal about what drives Scott Guber. You suggest
>that he values the rules because they are a convenient
>crutch.

I suggest absolutely no causality, and I defy you to find a place where I do. I observe that when Scott shows backbone, it is usually in connection with the application of clear-cut doctrine from the book. That just says he gets his spine from the book, NOT that he goes to the book *because* it provides a spine. I think Scott likes rights and wrongs that are clear-cut, and he is drawn to regulations because they reflect that. They also give him a stable frame of reference in which to operate, where everyone can look up the rules and know what page they are working from. Scott is a man of integrity operating in a world where few people can make that claim. When one gets into the frame of relativisms and dialectics, he's lost. He doesn't want to deal with a world where the rules change every five minutes subject to someone's relative whims--most people's whims are based on their level of personal integrity, and Scott has decided not to be a student of other people's whims (except when absolutely necessary--as with Sheryl Holt). When you're dealing with people on a personal level, you are often dealing with those aspects of personality that Scott doesn't like to deal with. Things change so fast, that you can't always point to a consistent rule. In an argument, you can't always point to a schema of rules. In a debate, you can. In postmodern lit, you can't always point to a unifying structure or principle. In Renaissance Lit, you can. In modern music...sheesh. Scott listens to classical, baroque, romantic--music with defined structure as well as individual creativity. These things, like the rule book, answer to qualities already in Scott--consistent qualities.

He is certainly more confident when he has
>rules and authority on his side, but I think
>everybody's more confident when they have that
>back-up. The fact that he appears stronger and more
>confident at school does not mean that he has no
>deeper value system beyond school policy, or that he
>wouldn't stand up for those values when called to do
>so outside of the school setting.

Which is not what I'm saying. Scott's happiest when ambiguity is on a curve approaching zero. Unfortunately, most social situations don't fall there. Scott's happiest with the letter of the law. He doesn't ignore the spirit of it, but there's nothing he can point to there, which leaves the potential for lack of clarity in putting it into effect.
>
>Tell me, what specific policy was Scott leaning on
>when he defended Harvey Lipschultz's negative
>recommendation? It seems ridiculous to me that "You
>must defend your teachers' right to honesty" would be
>written in Scott's handbook. No, it was a higher
>principle that Scott was defending before that lawyer.

One like the First Amendment. This is still an admin situation. Doctrine and dogma can be applied.
>
>Tell me, what specific policy was Scott leaning on
>when he changed his mind about "It's Our Town Too" and
>defended it forcefully before the Shoe Lady?

Ditto.
>
>Tell me, what specific policy was Scott leaning on
>when he defended Anthony Ward? That was him acting on
>empathy and gut feelings, not on policy. Policy
>dictated that the police be notified.

He was taking a similar position to me: In the absence of a clear-cut offense, punishment of that level is unwarranted. Show me the rule Ward violated. The punishment is nearby. It certainly isn't the same as the punishment he drew for the thing he didn't do. Anyway...admin situation.
>
>Tell me, what specific policy was Scott leaning on
>when he invited Kevin Jackson to join his debate team?
> What policy was it that drove him to push Kevin
>relentlessly, even after his disasterous showing in
>competition (remember his scenes with Kevin in last
>year's finale)? No, it wasn't policy, but a desire to
>awaken the raw talent in a student that motivated him.
>
First of all, even Scott admitted that he wanted a Token. And he apologized for that. Secondly...oh. after that, there is no "secondly." What he wanted was not for the team, but for himself. Perhaps his whining about the narrow victory was not so out of character, after all.

>"I am a teacher- it's not about budgets at the end of
>the day with me, it's about those kids." "There has
>to be a medium, Steven. Teachers can get lost too,
>you know." Those are his words, spoken honestly.
>Scott believes he is acting in the best interest of
>the students, the teachers, and the school. His good,
>principled motivations seem blatantly obvious to me.
>
Not that I questioned them...

>>>Argument from silence. We haven't seen this played
>out yet. Now who is "assuming?"<<
>
>I made an educated guess based on what we've seen on
>the show so far- a guess, by the way, that makes even
>more sense given what some of the characters said in
>the last episode. "When you start in on this
>mumbo-jumbo (referring to policy), I stop listening."
>"You're idea of direction is to give marching orders."
> A lot of people don't think he can fill this role.
>We shall see. Personally, I'm waiting for everyone's
>faulty assumptions to be blown right out of the water!
>
Don't worry--there's a laundry list of faults for Harper. It has some red-lighted stinkers on it, too.

And hey...Joe Clark was big on the rule book, too.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-4
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.