So I've been looking at high school photographs recently, and realized how well my (old) social groups fit into the categories described by Judd Apatow's ingenious (albeit short-lived) dramedy Freaks and Geeks. Decide for yourself, and keep in mind the differences between Apatow's affluent Michigan suburb and an inner-city Chicago Public School.
The geeks:And a third social group, which for some reason I can't quite pigeonhole into a stereotype:When I think about it, I was pretty much a complete nerd, so it would be more fitting to label the first as Geeks, the second as Dorks, and the third as... well, probably Freaks.
If I rationalize hard enough I can sort of see a Lindsay Weir parallel in the last one. If I really really try. I'm smirking, right? Right? Right.
(And check out the messenger bag and combat(ish) boots in the last picture. Man, I thought I was so cool. And this wasn't even during my short-lived emo-goth phase sophomore year.)
Let's see... I'd be Lindsay (YAY!), to the left is the dude played by Seth Rogen, to the right are James Franco and Jason Segel. Oh man, I wish my life were a dramedy.
Cue pretentious literary quote:
"Life is a comedy for those who think, a tragedy for those who feel"--Horace Walpole
To those reading that somehow take offense at their being called either a freak or a geek (although I doubt anyone reading would take offense), stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. Just because there's a hipster, indie, scenester, hippie, punk, or emo culture doesn't mean everyone fits into any of them, and that anyone involved with any of the movements is somehow labeled as the typical member of said movement. Except punk. Punks are totally punk. Punks are totally punk because they love telling other people about how amazingly punk they are. So they're the exception. If they're actually punk. (End rant)
Why do I love labels so much? Probably because of how simultaneously right and wrong they are. They're walking contradictions!