You can probably tell that sulz here is her biggest critic. She judges herself quite harshly when she doesn’t achieves what she expects to. Sometimes she moans about it here, then her ever loyal readers and friends would leave such wonderful, encouraging comments. They’d tell her that just because she didn’t get into the Dean’s list, it does not make her stupid. Just because she has whackos for lecturers sometimes, it doesn’t mean that she’s got an attitude problem.
Okay, she gets it, truly she does. One bad thing doesn’t make her a total failure. Two bad things doesn’t make her a total failure. Hell, ten thousand bad things doesn’t make her a total failure because she has ten thousand other good things in her if we search hard enough.
Yet, we don’t apply that same standard when sulz does achieve something. We wax lyrical of her. We make such a big deal out of that success that it seems to be her worth as a person. Bad things doesn’t make you stupid, but good things proves you are smart!
Please don’t misunderstand her here. She is not in any way undermining her friends’ and readers’ sincere happiness for what she has achieved in the past. Let it be said that all encouraging comments here by you truly adds points to her self-esteem, if you could measure self-esteem that way. Her point is that… doesn’t it seem that we have two different standards for failure and success here? That if sulz is successful, it is solely due to her effort, and that if she failed, it doesn’t prove anything of her character or performance or intelligence. That it wasn’t necessarily her fault.
(Ah, who is she to say that?! She uses that same double standards with her own friends too!)
Sometimes do wonder… if sulz’s success and failures in life were solely of her doing or were they achieved (or failed) with a combination of luck (or lack of) or fortuitous circumstances.
Perhaps a bit of both.