Scott's difficult to stuff into a neat box -- Boston Public Forum

[ 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: 23:24:23 05/23/02 Thu
Author: Hobsonphile
Subject: Scott's difficult to stuff into a neat box
In reply to: Wakener 's message, "Re: I guess we'll see, won't we? I still believe you're dead wrong" on 20:38:53 05/23/02 Thu

>>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.<<

No, but it does point out the unfairness of Scott being singled out for his faults. You say you're not doing that- fair enough, I will end that line of debate.

>>Finally, in defense of the "many," you equate liking the characters with excusing their actions. I'm sure you know better.<<

Actually, you are misreading me here. I specifically said that I sympathize with certain characters' points of view even if I don't agree with their actions- this is not equating "liking" with "excusing." I LIKE Steven- but I don't agree with some of his actions as principal. In reality, I think he's disturbingly inconsistent in asserting his authority- the charges Scott leveled at him are based in truth, IMHO. I love Scott- but I do think he can be too quick to judge, to competitive, and too abrasive.

>>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?<<

Well, I already admitted to feeling hypersensitive that day and I apologized.

>>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.<<

That is true.

>>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.<<

I definitely agree with you here. This is part of the reason why I often find Scott to be so refreshing in his vice principal role. At 22, I fear I'm already an old school marm itching to tell those young whippersnappers to turn their hats around the right way, tie their shoe laces, remove their tongue studs, and wash their filthy mouths out with soap. I cheer whenever Scott verbally disembowels one of Winslow's young miscreants. ;)

>>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.<<

Have any of them gone nine years without sex? ;) Kidding.

>>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.<<

Are they really? I've never tried them. ;)

>>Guber is by no means one-dimensional<<

No, he isn't. Which is why, I suppose, I object to the description of him as "weak." He is not universally so.

>>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.<<

Well, in my general experience on three different Boston Public boards, Harry Senate fans are a large, very vocal majority. And they can get very, VERY upset when someone comes in with a dissenting point of view.

People who dislike Harry Senate generally don't write "How can you like Harry? He is soooooo gross! Eeew, what's wrong with you????????" posts- but if you replace Harry with Scott, you get a post representing a large percentage of Harry-fan discourse. I find posts like that to be extremely irritating, especially when they decide to flood the forum with them- I apologize for allowing that irritation to get the better of me.

>>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.<<

This is true, but I guess I just don't see how that reflects poorly on Scott.

>>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.<<

Again, this is true. But again, I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Maybe because I am, by temperament, someone who also appreciates the Rule of Law over the Rule of Man.

I do giggle over incidents like him fainting before Lauren Davis. But that's not the primary reason why I like him as much as I do. It's the INTEGRITY you have outlined above that draws me to the character.

>>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.<<

He admitted that the "Token" effect may have been an UNCONSCIOUS influence. He did not admit that this was the whole reason he pushed for Kevin to join his team. And his continued interactions with Kevin after the disasterous debate showed that he DID in fact respect Kevin for his TALENT. Remember what Scott said to Kevin in the season finale last year to encourage him? "It has been my experience that you have always had something to say. Because, Mr. Jackson, YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY." On one level, he may have desired victory for himself, but that was certainly not the only, nor the most important, level of motivation.

On the whole, I think Scott is extremely difficult to stuff into the "weak" box, especially after this year's finale. And this time around, you can't claim "administration situation," because he was also a personal support for Steven.

Steph

PS: Oh yes, and, as I am Jewish, the fact that Scott is Jewish certainly doesn't hurt my estimation of him either. ;)

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

Replies:

Re: Scott's difficult to stuff into a neat box -- Wakener, 14:51:06 05/26/02 Sun