Can Someone Please Help Me Understand "Finishing The Hat"? — Page 2

Isn't it Sundays without the Apostrophe?

I think its about a common male problem, this personal goal that he thinks everyone should accomodate their lives around, finishing the hat is important to him, but not so important to Dot, and if he loves her, should he not be sensitive to her needs as well as his own?

Perhaps he does not love her with the same intensity as he loves his art, I think that's fairly clear, but when you examine that, it's fairly selfish.

I have a problem with the piece in that sense, George is NOT a sympathetic character, but then again, that's the beautiful agony of the piece. We are all often selfish when it comes to our goals, artistic or otherwise. What bothers me is when people (fans) glorify George for it. He may be a legendary artist, but I would rather strive to be remembered as a good person.

---

And those reasons are? Just to play Devil's Advocate. While I DO understand the creative urge, I don't think it can't be reconciled with the social one. To denigrate relationships in order to satisfy the need to create just sullies both. I don't understand why both can't coexist.

---

I've always thought the song was him saying that while he wants Dot to stay with him, he cannot forget his obsession with his art, and he comes to terms with the fact that his art will always keep him from having Dot.

---

"It's something to be avoided, not celebrated."

Why?

Who says one choice is more correct or worthy than the other? What makes one selfish and the other not. Choosing the girl would get him sex, companionship, etc. Why wouldn't that be considered selfish over the more noble generous act of creating art that may inspire the world?

Choosing the relationship may be the noble choice for you. But who can say what the noble path is for someone else? I understand that you don't find him a sympathetic character. But he certainly is for people who relate to what he's going through. Maybe that's why this is the favorite musical of all my artist friends, not so much with the non-artists.

---

"But wouldn't the best solution be to...I don't know. Follow the golden rule? Treat others as you would want to be treated?"

But he doesn't want to be treated that way himself. And it's not as if he mistreats Dot. He just can't meet her expectations for what she wants a boyfriend to be. He treats her well by always being up front about what he can be for her. She just chooses not to settle for it and leaves.

So I don't really see how your golden rule analogy applies here. Unless the golden rule has been changed to, "You should live up to others' expectations, no matter what they are, just as you would like others to live up to yours."

---

"That's mistreatment in my book. Whether by absent mindedness or malice, it's still mistreatment."

But is that one incident enough to paint him as an unsympathetic character? Or support your theory? It's just an illustration of their incompatability and not much different than you'd see in any relationship, really. I think you're reachin' now, Fenchurch.

But I'll give you a quote for the effort:

Fenchurch is correct, as usual.

---

Updated On: 7/25/07 at 12:55 PM

Right. But the question is, what exactly is the problem it's indicative of? You say mistreatment. I say bah! It's incompatibility of expectations, a difference in priorities and a strong pull towards his art and away from her.

What? You're not going to add my quote to your pile? I feel mistreated!

---

You're right. It doesn't excuse a broken promise. And you're also correct in that act I is more about Dot's growth than Georges'. (there, does that earn you the quote?) But I still say you're stretchin' it if you're gonna persist with this whole golden rule theory.

Georges is not an unsympathetic bad guy just because he's not the ideal boyfriend. He's a complex person. So is Dot. That's their story; two people struggling to find their way in life. If they weren't complex people we wouldn't care about their story and it would never have made it to the stage.

I'm sure Edna Turnblatt, being agoraphobic, has disappointed little Tracy on more than one occasion. But we still see Edna as a sympathetic character. These issues make these characters human and it's the reason we watch them with fascination to see how they deal with them, whether they grow or not.

My point is that he's not a bad man with issues we should avoid having . Issues are issues. You don't avoid them. Either you have them or you don't. The question is whether or not, and how, you deal with them. Georges is a complicated man who struggles toward choices that may seem a little crunchie to some folks. but should be honored for the tough choices they are. You don't have to celebrate them, but honor them. The choice may have been mistaken, the choosing was not.

---

Fenchurch, you're my new favorite poster. I'll have to unblock you.

---

So you're saying that George's character has trouble connecting and maintaining relationships, prefers his own obsessive, solitary activities to being with others, and may even have a sense that his creation is mightier and more noble than other pursuits in his life?

That's exactly what I said in my last post, except that it was couched in psychological terminology.

None of which answers the question of how we are "supposed" to feel about George, but it does give me a great deal of sympathy for him. He made a choice (to finish the hate) he felt completely compelled to make.