Thank you, matt, for being ever so eloquent. Oh that I should ever be as like you someday… {wistful sigh}
All 'board!
Esprix
:clapping hands:
::bows, accepts tossed rose::
Ok I opened the link because my curiosity got the best of me. I had no idea that seeing him in TCM Total Cuteness Mode would get me so damn hot. Those eyes! that hair! Those costumes!
Damn you Weird Earl for making me want him knowing all the time that it was never to be.
:sobbing hysterically:
Okay, I have another question here. What if, instead of being Peter Pan, a symbol of childlike whimsy, this man felt he was a kindred spirit with, say, Eminem? He goes to work dresses just like Eminem, he cut his hair to look like Eminem, he has a web site devoted to how much he loves being just like Eminem, etc. He’s basically this guy, but with Eminem. How would we react to that? I’m not trying to start a fight here; I just want to hear everyone’s (esp Matt, Jodi, and Guinastasia’s) opinion on it. Would this be more “normal”? Or less so?
Harmless? Sure. But last time I checked, Peter Pan wasn’t a woman-hating homophobe, so I’d gather that the merits of the person one chooses to emulate might more be called into question than the fact that you do so.
Esprix
I think then he would be Stan.
For the record, I admire MM for this song because he speaks to all the “fans” who do sick fucked-up shit and blame it on their own personal idol, whomever that may be–Ozzie Osborne, Dr. Dre, Beavis and Butthead. I’m sick to death of people not taking responsiblity for their own actions.
MATT –
I said:
To which MATT replied:
Well, maybe we have different definitions of “rude.” "Rude to me means “offensive,” and more particularly it means “offensive to someone in particular.” To me, a picture on the web is like a picture in a book or magazine, and I don’t think commenting that I think someone looks ridiculous upon seeing a picture of them is rude. Rude would be telling him I think he looks ridiculous, which I would never do.
Again, let’s be very clear: We are not talking generally about “choosing to be visibly different” in any number of ways, some of which might strike me personally as funny and some of which might not. We are talking specifically about a grown man who dresses like Peter Pan.
As far as I am aware, no one has brought any “social pressure” to bear on this individual. Do you know differently?
But of course, I never said any of this. And the repression I am speaking of specifically is the assertion that I personally, or people like me, cannot even comment that this man looks silly – just as silly as if he was wearing the afore-mentioned Goofy suit – without being considered “rude” or oppressive of him or condoning violence or nefarious action against him. That’s a HUGE jump in logic.
So now not only must I refrain from finding a man who dresses light Peter Pan to be a funny sight, I must congratulate him? I don’t think so. There is a vast gulf between “total conformity” and dressing like fictional characters. This is not 1984, but neither is it Into The Woods. There is arguably much to be pitied in a person who cannot find enough wonder and beauty in the real world and who feels he must take psychic refuge in a world that does not exist – not as a hobby, as you do, but as a way of life. You may admire this man; I do not, nor am I required to. Though neither do I condemn him; I just think he’s silly.
First, I have never “pointed,” and I have never “snickered.” Please do not work so hard to make my opinions or actions more nefarious than they are. If I met this man, I would neither point nor snicker. That does not mean I do not have the right and the ability to be amused by a website for a man who dresses like Peter Pan – just as I might be amused if I read about him in a magazine or saw him on the television. Second, to the extent he recognizes that he looks silly and takes joy in that fact, I am perfectly happyy to share in that joy and join him in laughing at his silliness. If thinking about my amusement in these terms makes it less objectionable to you, then by all means do so.
But that is not what I asked. I asked what you honestly think most of his coworkers think of him. I ask this because I think it is unrealistic to imagine that most people – call them conformist, call them narrow-minded, call that what you want – would find having coworker who consistently dresses as Peter Pan to be a source of welcome whimsy, as opposed to an amusing oddity. What you would think of it is not what most people might think of it. I don’t know; maybe you believe most people would think it was a fabulous thing to do. This appears to be contradicted, however, by the fact that most people do not stroll around in costume every day, and do not appear to have a particularly high opinion of those who do.
I consider this more semantics. Do you think Peter Pan was real? I assume not. I have never said the real world cannot include costumes; I have said that people who consistently dress and act like fictonal – as in “not real” – characters may have their actions interpreted as an inability or unwillingness to deal with the real world. Your assertion to the contrary, the fact is that most people do not wear costumes on a daily basis. Most people do not subsume their own identities into the perceived identities of people or things that never existed. And aside from courage, I see little to admire in people who do. You may see a man with the courage to “be himself;” I see a man who singularly lacks the ability to be himself and who instead chooses to try to be someone else.
Of course, I never said he truly believed he was literally Peter Pan. And believing you are “like” someone or something else does not mean it is a good idea to dress as if you think you are pretending you are that person or thing. I may admire the qualities of Eleanor Roosevelt, Joan of Arc, and Amelia Earhardt; that doesn’t mean I dress like them, or that I would expect people not to consider me odd if I did.
THIS YEAR’S GIRL –
IMO it would be equally as “normal” and equally as silly, and I would be equally as able to laugh at such a person, though my laughter in that case would likely to be less benign.
I would also add that I find it extremely surprising that people who say they are – and whom I truly believe are – so dedicated to liberal values, live-and-let-live, and non-judgmentalism are so quick to be so judgmental in such a minor matter as what other people may be or ought to be amused by.
Fine - “silly” I can live with, as it’s the word the man himself chose. I still object to “foolish,” however, as I don’t care for the connotations.
Done and done.
Esprix
Well, having recently made a big ol’ stink over the use of the word “privilege,” I can’t say I think you’re quibbling. So “silly” it is.
I’m quite sure it’s possible to be offended by a particular piece of commentary without believing that that commentary ought to be banned from the earth, as you seem to think I am in favour of, Jodi. (This seems to happens to me a lot, with the result that now all the capitalists think I’m a communist and all the socialists think I’m a Friedmanite.)
Honestly, the man put his pictures up. He knows they’re silly, but he’s not trying to invite people to laugh at him. We point out our sillinesses to others not so they will laugh at us, but so they will laugh with us, as the cliché goes.
I guess I just find it sad how some people reacted. And they apologized. So, well, fine. Whatever. But as someone who’s spent his life being mocked for being different, I hope you see my point, even if you disagree with it.
All I can really do is congratulate this guy on sharing himself with the world despite the mockery which he must receive on a daily basis. I’m quite sure that nothing we’ve seen on the message board compares to what he receives in daily life.
(By the way, “silly” comes from the middle English “sæelig”, meaning blessed; the seely court was the court of good fairies. So I suppose I can’t object too strenuously to it.)
MATT –
What I think is that you have attempted to inform me (and others) of what we may or may not be amused by without crossing some ever-moving line of political correctness. Again, we are not discussing some offensive racial or homophobic site; we’re discussing a man who dresses like Peter Pan. I find such over-zealous frowny-ness to be antithetical to the idea of tolerance I know you are devoted to. I mean, surely you see how some people might be amused by this without being vicious, violent, repressive, bigots.
Frankly, I don’t see the distinction you are drawing between a man who knows he looks silly and who invites people to laugh with him at his silliness, as opposed to at him for his silliness. The reason for the laughter is the same: the man is silly.
Sure I see your point; I just think you’ve been a tad over-zealous in this case. Just because you unfortunately have been mocked for being different does not mean that every person who acknowledges silliness or foolishness in others is doing so motivated by malicious mockery, or that we need to assume they are. Some things just strike people as funny, and that includes a grown man dressed up like Peter Pan.
You know what? Matt’s pointing out the origin of the word silly reminds me of the Russian cultural idea of the Holy Fool-he who is foolish and humble is blessed. Or something of that nature. Hell, Saint Basil’s in Moscow was built for Vasil the Holy Fool, if I’m not mistaken.
So maybe fool could work…