Well, nevermind. I end up tying the two parts together somehow. . . TA DA!
PART ONE: Greatly Mediocre
Once again Daniel Coutz has inspired a blog post. I dedicate this entry in honor of his geniusness
Tonight my good friend Daniel used the term "greatly mediocre" to describe his dining experience at Golden Corral. While this term may seem silly at first glance, I believe it really just means "if you looked up the word 'mediocre' in the dictionary, you would see a picture of this next to it." It is something that captures the true, organic essence of what mediocricity* is at its core. Examples:
"Watching this Arena Football Game is a greatly mediocre experience."
"This school newspaper is greatly mediocre."
"This episode of 'Step by Step' is greatly mediocre."
"Mehmet Okur is a greatly mediocre basketball player."**
"This blog post is greatly mediocre."
I think you catch my drift. But all this thinking about things being "greatly mediocre" caused me to think about how I sometimes describe things as "wonderfully terrible." Things that are wonderfully terrible, by my definition, are things that are poor in quality, but at the same time you find yourself loving it, or at least enjoying it because you enjoy making fun of it. Do you know what I mean? Kind of like a lovable loser. For example. . .
"William Hung's singing is wonderfully terrible!"
"This chocolate cheese is wonderfully terrible!"
"This yo-yo I bought at the Dollar Tree is wonderfully terrible!"
"Big Joe's Polka Show on the Rural Free Delivery TV sure is wonderfully terrible!"
"This blog post is wonderfully terrible."
See, the phenomenon that commonly occurs is that many of the "greatly mediocre" things are often more frustrating than the things that could be "wonderfully terrible." Like RoseArt products for example. I can't stand RoseArt stuff. They take advantage of poor Sunday School teachers who think they are getting a good deal by spending a little less by buying low-quality RoseArt crayons instead of Crayola crayons. How much difference could there be? GAH! It's like trying to use Saran-Wrap instead of toilet paper. It's just not the same.
Hmm, maybe some things aren't even worthy of being called "mediocre."
----Okay pretend I am using a clever transition phrase/illustration/diversion tool here-----
PART TWO: why you shouldn't
Our kindergarten teachers always told us it was bad for to swallow gum because it would clog up our intestines or something like that. Well I did some good quality research on the world wide web and found the REAL reason you should not swallow gum. The teachers were just too shy/proper to explain to us that this is really what happens when people swallow bubble gum:
IN CONCLUSION:
I'd rather purchase a low-quality product that I am expecting to be low-quality than purchase a mediocre-quality product I am expecting to be high-quality.
I guess I would feel the same way about myself. I'd rather be a low-quality person that people can tell is a low-quality person than a poser who everyone thinks is great but finds out isn't all he's cracked up to be.
See, if I make myself out to be some great, wonderful, amazing person with all the qualities you expect to find in a great, wonderful, amazing person but on the inside I am anything but those things, it may work out perfectly for me temporarily. But after a while these things I have hidden will become problematic and expose themselves. And that is even more embarrassing and shame-inducing. Just like the poor little boy who swallowed his gum so his teacher wouldn't see, and then ended up with a giant bubble coming out of his backside.
:)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* - "mediocricity" isn't really a word, but I like using it instead of "mediocrity." "Mediocrity" sounds too crunchy.
** - I just used Mehmet Okur as an example because his name sounds a lot like the word "mediocre."
