November 12, 2007

Would You Rather

Buster fears sheep

In honor of veteran’s day, an unrelated picture of my favorite almost-member of Army. Buster Bluth!

Would You Rather

  • Be notorious
  • Live alone as a hermit and be completely forgotten

Bonus links:

Posted by James at November 12, 2007 10:22 AM
Create Social Bookmark Links
Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.drmomentum.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/1942

Comments

That would depend on what I was notorious for, whether or not my notoriety was deserved (i.e. whether or not I did whatever it was that made people judge me harshly), and how I felt about it (i.e. was I proud of it or ashamed of it.)

It would ALSO depend on whether I still had friends. If I have a few friends, then it's worth it to see them, and anyone who doesn't like it can bite me. But if I'm going to be universally scorned, I'd just as soon be a forgotten hermit. I know some people feel that bad attention is better than none at all, but I'm definitely not one of those people.

Posted by: Julie at November 12, 2007 12:10 PM

By "as a hermit" I mean you've cut off connections to other people. Living alone and having friends is not the same as being a hermit.

Posted by: James at November 12, 2007 12:15 PM

Good point about being notorious. For instance, Bush is notorious, but I don't think he gets it. Ignorance is bliss.

It helps to be arrogant in that case. At the 3-way intersection of arrogance, ignorance and incompetence is a blissful level of Hell.

Posted by: James at November 12, 2007 12:21 PM

I wasn't confused about what being a hermit means. I wasn't sure whether, as a notorious person, I would have friends. (Real friends, not just some assholes who tolerate my presence.) If so, then I would probably choose to be notorious, regardless. If not, I'd probably choose to be a hermit.

Posted by: Julie at November 12, 2007 12:55 PM

Gee, on the surface both options seem to have the potential for being friendless. If they are equal on that count, I'd take the hermit life.

Assuming that a hermit doesn't get any friends, but I could have true friends and be notorious (for something I actually did) that might be all right.

But, ideally, I think I would prefer an existence of relative anonymity with a few close friends who I had periodic contact with to a reviled existence in the public eye.

Posted by: Kitten Herder at November 12, 2007 1:24 PM

What Julie said originally. For instance, if I had to be Paris Hilton? I'll be out buying cave curtains tomorrow.

Posted by: pippa at November 12, 2007 1:25 PM

If I could be notorious in a '40s kind of way (witty like Dorothy Parker, fabulous friends, great clothes and lipstick, endless drinks I never paid for myself and cigarettes with ebony holders, a small pistol in my purse, etc.), I'd take it!

Posted by: Patti M. at November 12, 2007 3:00 PM

And yes I know her time at the Algonquin club was not in the '40s, but I like the clothes from the '40s, so I'd marry the two.

Posted by: Patti M. at November 12, 2007 3:02 PM

I have to go with notorious. I'm probably just misunderstood. ;-) My friends will understand and that's all right by me.

Posted by: briwei at November 12, 2007 3:34 PM

I have to think we'd all be notorious in our own way, and that the notoriety can't be thrust upon us uncharacteristically, but maybe I'm wrong.

I have become a notorious atheist among my townie friends, but I still have friends. :-P I might even be performing some conversions.

I'll take notoriety. As much as I enjoy my solitude, I think I need people.

Posted by: Maggie at November 12, 2007 5:28 PM

Copyright © 1999-2007 James P. Burke. All Rights Reserved