MovieChat Forums > Paper Towns (2015) Discussion > Where does a girl like Margo actually en...

Where does a girl like Margo actually end up?

posted 9 years ago by massyk
106 replies | jump to latest

Where do these free spirit, live one day at a time, in the moment type girls end up? I feel like as fun as it might be to live your life as one giant adventure, it would eventually come back to bite you in the ass.

Do these types of girls suffer from basic life struggles like:

Paying your rent in full and on time.
Finding anything other than a minimum wage job.
Friends getting sick of letting you crash on their couches.
A resume filled with jobs that never last more than a few weeks & months.
A boss.

And if not, how?

Is it as simple as them being able to use their good looks to get guys to go through these things for them?

I'm not trying to be bitter or sexist, I'd love to know a girl like this but I cant imagine its an easy existence.

[–] Asylum_runaway 9 years ago

I had a friend like Margo. She didn't like to stay in one place for very long. Never got to know her well enough to find out why. However, we're still friends on FB and she occasionally writes little updates. She's been all over the west and east coast. She gets by through little jobs like working in a costume shop and by sharing a place (roommates). You would think someone like Margo (or my friend) would end up living under a bridge, and some probably do...but there's always a way. Her life is definitely different. Always moving around. Not my sort of thing, though.

"One rule: We live or die together." - Joshua Nolan to Irisa Nolan, Defiance

[–] massyk 9 years ago

Thanks for the response, doesn't exactly sound like easy living but it sure does sound a lot more interesting than most of our lives.

[–] paulfitzpa 9 years ago

Easy living drives some people insane I think.

Fear drives the need for the security of a long-term full time job. Other people are fearless in that sense, they believe that the world will give them a way to survive and it usually does.

I prefer a bit of security though, but I do go nuts with menial tasks. You only live once, why spend it being an accountant for 40 years...

[–] jondoe888 8 years ago

A good question, as mysterious as the movie. Maybe she's filled with wanderlust, and will make her own way. She may become an artist, or a writer - or hop from job to job, city to city, when it gets too small for her. Maybe she will take some 'gap years' and go to college.
This is what drives live-aboard sailors. Or European backpackers. At 30, I was in a touring band. Great fun, but by the 5th year it got to be too much. At 35, I was ready to settle down.

But we can think this of any movie - in a rom-com, what happens the next week, month, or year, when reality comes crashing back in?
At 25, my wife and I were making the final payment on a 34' sailboat, to live-aboard. And she got pregnant. I was NOT happy, but the kids were a much better adventure! The sailboat would have likely been a disaster.

[–] Splarne 8 years ago

And she got pregnant. I was NOT happy,

ever find the father?

****

It's not my job to tell you what you want. It's my job to tell the truth.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DfromKJD_DTH 9 years ago

Hopping from one boyfriend to the next who will take care of them because they're hopelessly in love.
The mysterious girl for boys is the equivalent to the "bad boy" for girls.
That's just sadly how it is and these types of girls take advantage of it because they know they can and they know that's the only way to live the lifestyle they want. Use, rinse, repeat.

[–] Sekraan 9 years ago

I've known guys who do this as well. Let's not stereotype genders here because this type of behaviour is equal opportunity for both sexes.

[–] Tastentier 8 years ago

Agreed. It's just as easy for a handsome young man to find someone to move in with and pay the bills for a while. At least if said young man happens to be gay, bi or pan.

The only gender constant here is that it's usually men who allow these people to set up shop in their life, because men are still conditioned to think that a romantic partner can be bought and owned like property. Or operated like a vending machine that dispenses sex and companionship in exchange for gifts and social status. Of course people of both genders are going to take advantage of that. Humans, like all living organisms, are opportunistic creatures.

[–] drgreenthumb1001 8 years ago

and why do men think like this? Because the majority of woman out there still want a husband for "security" and to help woman raise their eventual children.

We are all just Humans looking to fulfill the needs placed upon us by nature

[–] Tastentier 8 years ago

People of both genders are drawn to one another because we're social animals who like to live in groups. Also because we like to have sex all year round, not just during mating season. Those are the main reasons for us to seek human company in general and romantic partners in particular.

When it comes to children, there is an interesting social phenomenon that occurs when women are given enough economic opportunities and full control over their bodies, which is plummeting birth rates. In all Western countries with relative gender equality and female reproductive autonomy (which sadly doesn't include the US at this point), the birth rates have fallen to or below replacement value.

Countries that continue to have ridiculously high birth rates, on the other hand, tend to be patriarchal theocracies where women have little if any say in partner selection and family planning. Strange, isn't it? It's almost as if men need women more urgently than women need men, and also want to reproduce more urgently than women. But of course this need is imposed on men by the same patriarchal system that reduces women to walking incubators. Women and children increase a man's social status, provide free labor and serve as an old age insurance.

My point is that culturally imposed gender roles shouldn't be confused with human wants and instincts, which are subject to a great degree of phenotypic variation. Also that patriarchy ultimately screws both genders as well as this grossly overpopulated planet.

[–] Xkape 8 years ago

I've known guys who do this as well. Let's not stereotype genders here because this type of behaviour is equal opportunity for both sexes.

He didn't stereotype a gender. He said that "these types of girls" since it was female gender that was referred to in the original post. Stereotyping would say that all females are like this. Posters like you who go on the immediate defence when it comes to defending the female gender are easy to see through. You're one of those feminist PC nut cases no doubt who looks for arguments.

[–] drgreenthumb1001 8 years ago

THIS. Is SPOT ON

[–] Lao_Che 9 years ago

porn

[–] tradewithme4444 7 years ago

who needs anyone if you have that and a fast internet connection. I can't be any happier.

[–] agentorange631 9 years ago

Like the other posters have said, it isn't easy. A decent number move from small job to small job while perhaps a larger number may typically do some kind of sex work; be it porn or prostitution. A decent number still, are homeless.

It should also be understood that people that live this way aren't fully developed psychologically. This type of behavior almost always stems from some kind of early trauma resulting in attachment disorder. In this case, seeing the suicide victim (it was suicide right?) at the start as a child.

[–] Lethal_007 9 years ago

Yep, correct. I think you're overanalyzing it a bit with the second part, but the first one is spot on!

[after killing an Irish] Burn him, see if his ashes turn green - Bill the Butcher

[–] agentorange631 9 years ago

I tend to do that now and again. What can I say, I like detail. lol

[–] steve_n88 9 years ago

Why does everyone assume Margo will end up in such tragic circumstances? Who's to say she doesn't do all the things she wants for a decade then settle down like most people do? Why does she have to become a porn star or an abuser of men? Margo didn't do any of that, all she wanted was for Q to live a little, she never lead him on in any way.

I think we could learn a lot from Margo, too many people live their lives for the future rather then the present simply because they're too afraid of what will happen if they follow the road less traveled.

[–] agentorange631 9 years ago

Okay,I'll play along. Say Margo does what she wants for ten years. She's now 28 with no degree or trade, a lot of waitress experience and some fond memories. What options are going to be open to her now?

Living in the moment for a moment or two is fine but living moment to moment for ten years is going to leave you fairly bad off, at least in the US. The developed world at large isn't a place that forgives embracing desire for extended periods; you're not born to live but to be a cog.

As far as seeing her abuse men; she led Q on fairly successfully in the movie. She may have just wanted him to learn to appreciate the moment and take some risk but he ended up straining his existing friendships to track down someone who didn't even care about him. Q would have been just fine if she had not have taken him on that last night out. Hell, she basically stopped hanging with him after that night as kids because he didn't want to run off with her; that's pretty selfish.

To boot, Margo talked to her sister every day but didn't have the decency to let Q know she didn't want him looking for her when she found he was clearly taking the clues the wrong way.

[–] steve_n88 9 years ago

Say Margo does what she wants for ten years. She's now 28 with no degree or trade, a lot of waitress experience and some fond memories. What options are going to be open to her now?

Living in the moment for a moment or two is fine but living moment to moment for ten years is going to leave you fairly bad off, at least in the US. The developed world at large isn't a place that forgives embracing desire for extended periods; you're not born to live but to be a cog.

You see you're basing your opinion on ideals most people have, Margo isn't most people, she doesn't want the same things most people want. Which means you won't be looking for the same options, i.e. a 401k, mortgage, degreee, etc. I know tons of smart people without degrees who take a completely different path then I have and turn out just fine. Of all places to embrace your desire, the US is the perfect place to do so because there are SO MANY opportunities. Its the reason I personally don't like giving money to random homeless people, because I know how easy it is to get a job and make something of yourself. I could see Margot easily become a waitress at random places to pay rent (with her looks and personality she'd get lots of tips), heck she seems like the kind of person that totally wouldn't mind slumming it in a tent because she can do without all of the comforts that MOST people can't. Margot is not only smart, she's street smart, she knowns how to survive, she's not at all materialistic, and she's proven time and again she can make it on her own even at the ripe age of 18, why doubt her ability to do so with 10+ years of experience at it?

As far as seeing her abuse men; she led Q on fairly successfully in the movie. She may have just wanted him to learn to appreciate the moment and take some risk but he ended up straining his existing friendships to track down someone who didn't even care about him. Q would have been just fine if she had not have taken him on that last night out. Hell, she basically stopped hanging with him after that night as kids because he didn't want to run off with her; that's pretty selfish.

You state that although "She just wanted him to learn to appreciate the moment... and take some risk, HE ended up straining his existing friendships to track down someone who didn't even care about him." Q did ALL of this on his own, she never ASKED to be found that was what bothered me about Q in the book and the movie, the entire time he was assuming she wanted him to come and "rescue" her, but all she was doing was leaving him clues so that he would know she was ok, Q misinterpreted her, thats NOT her fault. And in regards to taking Q out on her last nite, Q stated that it was "the best night of his entire life", so how is that selfish?? Everything she did was to also help him come out of his shell, and take some risks. She was infamous for the adventures she went on, she just wanted to include him in one for once. The reason she stopped hanging out with him is because she, like him, had built this image in her head of Q, in her story she painted him as some badass and she was disappointed he wasn't but it turns out he actually was, while Q ends up finding she wasn't more than a girl.

In regards to her chatting with her sister everyday, thats something that deviated from the book, but to Margo and Ruthie's credit, Ruthie would have no way of knowing Q went to NY to find Margo all she saw was him finding the clues Margo specifically left for him. Remember Q's decision to go to Agloe was a last minute one, Ruthie couldn't have known that to inform Margo.

[–] agentorange631 9 years ago

Then your stance is self defeating since "settling down" entails certain things that you clearly don't expect her character to want. She may not be materialistic but unless she plans to work until death she'll need some kind of retirement plan which means she'll need something that pays better than waitress jobs. Especially since marrying a wealthy man to attain financial security qualifies as abusing men.

I'm not sure you and I live in the same "US". Perhaps it's the region, but as far as I'm aware, the US is facing a major issue with a lack of actual opportunity compared to induced responsibilities.

Did you intend to misquote me or was that subconscious? I didn't read the book so any opinions you have will have to be solely about the movie.

Moreover; Q's misinterpretation is somewhat reasonable considering the conditions: he goes running around with Margo the night before she disappears, he see that no one cares to find her, then he finds clues that she left. He obviously worries about her and cares for her (however foolishly or vainly) and does the only logical thing left to someone in his position. While Margot didn't hold a gun to his head and physically force him to go looking for her he was psychologically compelled to do so. Q never asked her to help him out of his shell, nor did he try to enter back into her life after they grew apart; so for her to drag him around, on her revenge plot no less, was selfish. I maintain that, had Margo not pulled him out with her that last night, Q would not have gone looking for her. By doing that she rekindled his hopes/expectations/desires falsely out of a self-centered desire to end their friendship the way it had began despite the fact that it had already ended years prior.

Further, Ruthie stood watch over Margo's room as Q and his friends looked for those clues. Ruthie later lets Q partially remove Margo's bedroom door. What logical person takes this for anything else than a search for a means of finding Margo? I believe there may have even been a line where Q states his desire to find her while in her room with his friends that Ruthie would have surely heard.

[–] steve_n88 9 years ago

I am not sure how I misquoted you seeing as I copy and pasted exactly what you typed but... You state

your stance is self defeating since "settling down" entails certain things that you clearly don't expect her character to want.

You say "settling down", "entails certain things" what does it entail? Your definition and yours alone? You keep looking as if Margo will have to eventually follow the same path so many other's do, simply because its what everyone else does. Even if Margo were to "settle down" why does it have to be with someone who will support her? Why can't a waitressing job here or there pay her rent or for her to live out in the woods somewhere? You continue to assume Margo will have to follow a path according to your standards, when she only follows her own. Have you ever tried living like Margo before? Moving from place to place, picking up odd jobs, your only possession's being what can fit in your car or backpack? From your skepticism I highly doubt it. So how would you know what is possible in this instance?

I'm not sure you and I live in the same "US". Perhaps it's the region, but as far as I'm aware, the US is facing a major issue with a lack of actual opportunity compared to induced responsibilities.

What are you basing this lack of opportunity on? Do you live in Detroit or something? Did you read the classifieds or craigslist for jobs this morning and find "0 entries"? Why do you think immigrants flood into this country illegally every single day? To collect unemployment? No, because there are jobs to be had here, sure they might be laborious but they are out there and for someone like Margo, they can be easily had.

Moreover; Q's misinterpretation is somewhat reasonable considering the conditions: he goes running around with Margo the night before she disappears, he see that no one cares to find her, then he finds clues that she left. He obviously worries about her and cares for her (however foolishly or vainly) and does the only logical thing left to someone in his position.

He does the "only logical thing left to someone in his position".... THE ONLY LOGICAL THING LEFT???? Really, so you're saying because he found some clues that he completely misinterpreted the ONLY LOGICAL thing for him to do was a 19hour drive to a fictional place where she might be?? Sure he cares about her, but he didn't do it because he cares about her as a friend, he did it because he was in love with her, don't forget that. They were barely friends, his reasons for finding her were his alone, THAT is why Margo can't be blamed for Q's actions.

While Margot didn't hold a gun to his head and physically force him to go looking for her he was psychologically compelled to do so.

You keep making my point for me, Margo did not force him to do anything, HE as you put it, was "psychologically compelled to do so". How is that her fault? Or her leading him on in any way?

Q never asked her to help him out of his shell, nor did he try to enter back into her life after they grew apart; so for her to drag him around, on her revenge plot no less, was selfish. I maintain that, had Margo not pulled him out with her that last night, Q would not have gone looking for her. By doing that she rekindled his hopes/expectations/desires falsely out of a self-centered desire to end their friendship the way it had began despite the fact that it had already ended years prior.

So at this point are you saying Q has no free will? That Margo held a gun to his head to make him hang out with her that night? No wait, you said earlier she didn't "hold a gun to his head"... So why is it selfish that she took him out on, again quoting Q "the best night of his life"? She didn't need him, she could've taken the minivan on her own or gotten the keys from her parent's room (she goes into more details in the book, but its not important), what's important is that she chose him. If he didn't want to go he could've simply said no. Is it Margo's fault Q misinterpreted the outing as a romantic gesture on her part? No.

I'm starting to wonder if a girl messed you up by becoming your friend and you misinterpreted it as a relationship or something....

In regards to Ruthie again, she's a child, you, like Q, are making assumptions as to what was said between Ruthie and Margo. And going from removing a door to look for clues to driving across the country is not something a child (or anyone for that matter) would recognize as a logical conclusion.

[–] agentorange631 9 years ago

The misquote was located inside your manual quotation using quotation marks, not using the quote box.

That is actually based on common use definitions such as this, from urban dictionary: "It means to get married or commit to a monogamous relationship; probably the two most indicative words for the situation itself, born of a word that can mean 'to move downward; sink, or descend,' 'to subdue,' and 'to conclude,' and a word that means the 'opposite of up.', and Merriam-Webster's: "to become established in a dwelling place or in a permanent job, profession, or business : begin to live a normal life. : to become inactive or sluggish". Any use of the term entails setting roots.

"What these graduates are likely to find in the job market, however, often falls well short of those ideals. High percentages of recent graduates report they are underemployed; salaries are low; graduates are not being offered learning experiences that advance their careers." 49% according to their study. Information attained here: https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-2015-accenture-college-graduate-employment-research.aspx. To boot, high school students are having a harder time finding work due partly to more older aged people staying on or seeking post-retirement work at a rate higher than previously seen, compounding the issue.

He does the "only logical thing left to someone in his position".... THE ONLY LOGICAL THING LEFT???? Really, so you're saying because he found some clues that he completely misinterpreted the ONLY LOGICAL thing for him to do was a 19hour drive to a fictional place where she might be?? Sure he cares about her, but he didn't do it because he cares about her as a friend, he did it because he was in love with her, don't forget that. They were barely friends, his reasons for finding her were his alone, THAT is why Margo can't be blamed for Q's actions.

Yes, he loved her, which is proven by his drive to find her. There was nothing indicating she didn't want to be found. And again, these reasons were driven by Margo taking him out that last night. (Love is also a form of care, just so you know.)

You keep making my point for me, Margo did not force him to do anything, HE as you put it, was "psychologically compelled to do so". How is that her fault? Or her leading him on in any way?

Aside from her taking him out that last night which was the catalyst for his psychological compulsion? Q didn't search for her when she went missing for days at a time previously even though he loved her then too. He only went to find her after she brought him back into her life.

So at this point are you saying Q has no free will? That Margo held a gun to his head to make him hang out with her that night? No wait, you said earlier she didn't "hold a gun to his head"... So why is it selfish that she took him out on, again quoting Q "the best night of his life"? She didn't need him, she could've taken the minivan on her own or gotten the keys from her parent's room (she goes into more details in the book, but its not important), what's important is that she chose him. If he didn't want to go he could've simply said no. Is it Margo's fault Q misinterpreted the outing as a romantic gesture on her part? No.

It is selfish because after years of having no significant relationship (in the capacity of a friend), Margo, out of the blue, drags Q back into her life. Also note that the minivan belongs to Q's family and that Margo taking it would constitute criminal action.

I'm starting to wonder if a girl messed you up by becoming your friend and you misinterpreted it as a relationship or something....

Yeah, that must be it. That would completely explain your inability to understand sentences with qualifiers and conditional & reactionary psychological motivations. (sarcasm)

I made no assumptions as to what was said, only to what should have been said based on Ruthie's observation of Q's actions. Going into anyone's house and partially removing a a bedroom door is not the conclusion, it is the grounds on which a conclusion is based; unless it is commonplace in your life for people to randomly desire to remove doors from their jambs.

[–] steve_n88 9 years ago

You actually quoted urban dictionary..... wow. Here is another "definition" I found on there for "settling down", "When you and your nlgga/bltch finally come to realization that it's time to stop fu cking around and become one", that delightful entry was brought to you by Blaaaahblaaah. I found some other delightful entries on there that you might enjoy, truffle butter was one of them. Urban dictionary aside, what I meant was "settling down" for Margo may or may not meet the same definition as something even as highly regarded as... urban dictionary, she is a character that really cannot be defined, regardless of your "definition".

In regards to your article, it doesn't take a genius to google "job market" and find a compendium of bleak articles each one worse then the next, yet most people still have jobs. It may be more difficult to find a "career" following a path similar to Margo's without a degree or experience, but from your article it seems that careers are few and far between for ANYONE. I still believe a character like Margo working odd jobs here and there will be absolutely fine. Sure, seeing someone in their 50's working as a waitress might look strange to some people but for someone like Margo who is not burdened by a life consuming career it can be quite liberating.

Yes, he loved her, which is proven by his drive to find her. There was nothing indicating she didn't want to be found. And again, these reasons were driven by Margo taking him out that last night. (Love is also a form of care, just so you know.)

He loved the idea of her, he was never truly in love with her. Even in the end he realizes she's just a girl, proving he went looking for her for the wrong reasons. As you stated there was nothing indicating she didn't want to be found, there was nothing indicating she wanted to be found either. Q's fantasy of finding Margo and being with her was his goal, he knew she was fine, he could've easily stopped after finding her entry on omnictionary because he knew she was ok, yet he didn't because he thought he was in love with her. And I know love is a form of care but he didn't do it because he simply "cared" about her well-being he didn't because he wanted to confess his feelings and bring her home, which is a selfish reason in itself for Q to believe he must be the one to come to Margo's "rescue".

It is selfish because after years of having no significant relationship (in the capacity of a friend), Margo, out of the blue, drags Q back into her life. Also note that the minivan belongs to Q's family and that Margo taking it would constitute criminal action.

After an entire night of vandalism and breaking and entering you really don't put it past Margo to steal Q's minivan?? Come on, please don't tell me that's your argument, if it is, its a weak one. And again, she does not NEED Q for any of it, she does it to help him, which she does by giving him, I can't stress this enough, the best night of his life. If you were taken on the "best night of your life" would your first instinct be to insult the person that brought you that joy by labeling them as "selfish"? I got this off of your go to source for definitions, Selfish - When you have a huge amount of interest invested in yourself, or when you don't think about the wants and needs of others. Although Margo wanted to sort her personal affairs (which she could've done without Q), she CHOSE Q to take him on a wild night of fun and mischief, which he thoroughly enjoyed, thus "thinking about the wants and needs of others" i.e. Q, so by that "definition" Margo was indeed NOT selfish.

I made no assumptions as to what was said, only to what should have been said based on Ruthie's observation of Q's actions. Going into anyone's house and partially removing a a bedroom door is not the conclusion, it is the grounds on which a conclusion is based; unless it is commonplace in your life for people to randomly desire to remove doors from their jambs.

I am going to assume you do not know the meaning of the word "assumption", I took the liberty of getting a "proper" definition from your favorite site urban dictionary defines assumption as something that you think is true although you have no definite proof . Lets go over this statement "I made no assumptions as to what was said, only to what should have been said based on Ruthie's observation of Q's actions." You see you say you "made no assumptions" and then literally go on to make... you guessed it, an assumption! You allude to a conversation that "should've" taken place that never actually did nor was there any indication that it had, that is whats called an assumption my friend.

All disputes aside, you do seem like a very bright individual. I can understand how it could be difficult to fathom a character like Margo making it in the real world. Although I don't live my life like Margo, I do find it fascinating and truly hope that it would be possible to live a life without feeling like a slave to material possessions or a well-paying 9-5 job. We can't all be like Margo or else nothing would get done, but I believe most people live their entire lives without actually living them, only with the hope that they will someday retire and THEN start "living". which makes Margo, at least for me, somewhat inspiring.

[–] agentorange631 9 years ago

You chose to focus on an admittedly questionable source and completely ignored the credible one.

You chose to imply the article isn't serious then go on to say it is irrelevant to the discussion making the previous action, itself, irrelevant.

It could be said that everyone loves the idea of another since we don't even know ourselves entirely. Theoretical hypotheses aside, Q loves who he believes her to be based on who he knew before their friendship effectually ended. It was a flawed belief but doesn't render his "love" invalid, simply also flawed. If finding her in order to be happy is selfish then you can't argue that Margo dragging him along that last night wasn't also such, since she did it based on her own flawed beliefs and understandings.

If Margo can't steal her own car without the keys then she won't likely be able to steal the minivan since she doesn't even know where the keys are usually kept; impeding her ability to even find them much less take them. She may be doing it to help Q but that is a belief based on her own flawed understanding. Further, Q doesn't regard it as the best night of his life until later and likely only does so because he was with Margo (despite his monologued reasons stated toward the end since back-treading would soil an already soft ending). Just because he ended up liking it doesn't mean it wasn't selfishly motivated.

It's funny how my co-use of urban dictionary is the only real leg you can lean on. You might also want to note that by using it to counter me, you've become the very thing you think you're condemning, and more so since you're not citing an accompanying, more credible, source.

Lets go over this statement "I made no assumptions as to what was said, only to what should have been said based on Ruthie's observation of Q's actions." You see you say you "made no assumptions" and then literally go on to make... you guessed it, an assumption! You allude to a conversation that "should've" taken place that never actually did nor was there any indication that it had, that is whats called an assumption my friend.

I don't see the issue here. I had made no assumption over what was actually said off screen, which I was stating. I only assumed that a logical person, based on actual life experience, would likely convey had they the chance; which is where the "should have" came into it. Margo and Ruthie spoke daily so one can expect Ruthie to tell Margo about Q's questionable actions and Margo reacting by giving instructions to clarify her intent to Q. I also didn't allude but clearly and openly stated my belief that such a conversation should have, realistically, taken place. The only reason it didn't is because such action would have cut the movie abruptly short.

Thank you for the compliment. Here we finally reach the real crux of the debate. You hold your beliefs about Margo as you do because you wish her way of life to be possible but without the potential extreme negative drawbacks. It should be noted here that no one said that all people who live like Margo end up as hookers, porn workers, or homeless; just that a large number do.

I do agree that most people aren't actually living, though I differ in opinion as to why that is.

[–] steve_n88 9 years ago

You chose to focus on an admittedly questionable source and completely ignored the credible one.

I didn't ignore the article, I read it and found it irrelevant to someone like Margo. Margo isn't the career type so why would getting a degree late in life and attempting to find a career apply to her? The article corresponds to college grads finding underpaid jobs or jobs without adequate training, I don't believe Margo fits into that category simply because she won't be looking for a career. She will look for something temporary, she will work to live not live to work. I completely agree with you that if Margo attempted to get a late start in life it would be far more difficult had she not just went to college right after high school, what I am simply stating is that a path laid out in the article you provided would not be a path Margo would ever take which is why I found it irrelevant. I never "implied your article" was not serious, again, that it would not apply to Margo.

It could be said that everyone loves the idea of another since we don't even know ourselves entirely. Theoretical hypotheses aside, Q loves who he believes her to be based on who he knew before their friendship effectually ended. It was a flawed belief but doesn't render his "love" invalid, simply also flawed. If finding her in order to be happy is selfish then you can't argue that Margo dragging him along that last night wasn't also such, since she did it based on her own flawed beliefs and understandings.

This argument will just have to be a difference of opinion in regards to "love". I don't believe Q's love was "invalid" simply misplaced. He misplaced his love for Margo on an impossible idea of her which is why he knew he didn't really love the real Margo when he found her. If he did he would've went with her, but he knew it was not meant to be. We will also have to agree to disagree on the definition of "selfish" simply because an argument can be made that they were BOTH selfish, Margo inviting Q along to "help" her and Q only helping her because of his infatuation with her in hopes of rekindling some kind of romance between he and her.

I don't see the issue here. I had made no assumption over what was actually said off screen, which I was stating. I only assumed that a logical person, based on actual life experience, would likely convey had they the chance; which is where the "should have" came into it. Margo and Ruthie spoke daily so one can expect Ruthie to tell Margo about Q's questionable actions and Margo reacting by giving instructions to clarify her intent to Q. I also didn't allude but clearly and openly stated my belief that such a conversation should have, realistically, taken place. The only reason it didn't is because such action would have cut the movie abruptly short.

You continue to state you "made no assumption" and then go on to contradict yourself in the following sentence... So say your assumption is correct and Ruthie told Margo about Q, it doesn't really matter because Q is simply following the clues Margo left for him. More so, Margo most likely told Ruthie Q would be stopping by to look for clues so that he would know she was ok. I still believe it was Q's prerogative to continue looking. If you want to discuss selfish how about Q dragging his friends through the mud to find someone he's infatuated with? If you're going to say Margo is selfish for "dragging" Q out on her last nite at home, you have to say the same for Q "dragging" his friends to an abandoned mall and across the country.

You hold your beliefs about Margo as you do because you wish her way of life to be possible but without the potential extreme negative drawbacks. It should be noted here that no one said that all people who live like Margo end up as hookers, porn workers, or homeless; just that a large number do.

I think there are negative drawbacks for ANY way of life, why should Margo's lifestyle be shunned because it is not the same as others? A large number of marriages end in divorce so should people stop getting married? No. For every college grad that may or may not find employment there is a Steve Job's, Bill Gates, or Peter Thiel out there that figured it out without a degree. There is an exception to every rule, anything is possible, including living a life without ever being a cog in the machine.

[–] agentorange631 9 years ago

I'm only replying to the following since we're obviously not on the same page, displayed by your inability to understand the bulk of what I've said.

There is an exception to every rule, anything is possible, including living a life without ever being a cog in the machine.

Yes, exceptions, which by their very definition are not the norm/common. This takes us right back to the beginning. I'm going to say we should just agree to disagree on all topics here since you obviously don't sufficiently understand my points/wording and I'm tired of banging my head against this metaphoric and cyclical wall; this being my last post.

[–] steve_n88 9 years ago

@AgentOrange631 I understand every point you have attempted to make I simply don't agree with your opinion. What an easy road to take to go through life assuming you're right about everything and no one else understands.

[–] luke_okazaki 9 years ago

I would like to see you in the streets, dirty, no money, no house, no family, then you come back and tell us your *beep* ''easy to find a job''

[–] steve_n88 9 years ago

@luke_okazaki, Paulfitzpa doesn't have to, just look at the unemployment rate, there are plenty of jobs out there most people are either A. Too lazy or B. Feel the job is beneath them so they just beg for money. If it weren't easy to find a job the unemployment rate would be much higher then 5.5% (which is super low, especially compared to most countries).

[–] agentorange631 9 years ago

That wouldn't change anything because Steve lacks understanding of what he talks about, as demonstrated in many of his replies.

[–] scaringi95 9 years ago

You actually sound like some sort of blow hard that can't accept that no everyone finds your understanding of life is the same for all. Steve sounds a little more giving which is what the world is if you ever actually got out there. Your views are made from a perception that your worlds view is the common normalcy. Get out the box son.

[–] agentorange631 8 years ago

My views aren't, in fact, made from an assumption that they are common or "normal". On the contrary, I'm fully aware that most of my views and opinions are far from the norm. However, given my I understand the "norm" to be and what it entails, I'm perfectly content with being outside of it and staying in my box, as you put it.

That being said, I'm neither here to make friends nor be charitable with my acceptance; especially if that which I'd be accepting is so obviously flawed. If you or anyone else doesn't like that then by all means, avert your eyes; no one is forcing you to observe this (as far as I know).

[–] tom-gastoz-28 8 years ago

this being my last post

What happened to make you change your mind?
*SIXSEASONSANDATRILOGY

[–] agentorange631 8 years ago

That was in reply to another poster and was posted well before you'd posted a reply to anything I posted.

[–] tom-gastoz-28 8 years ago

Just trying to figure out how you think.

*SIXSEASONSANDATRILOGY

[–] agentorange631 8 years ago

I sincerely wish you luck as I'm still working to figure that out myself! lol

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] agentorange631 7 years ago

None taken, and that may not be far off; though I think it more closely relates to a desire and not a need. In my mind a conversation or exchange of ideas follows a certain structure in that one person poses a question or idea to be challenged or agreed upon then others come to offer input. In this type of structure I'd argue that the party not responsible for initiating should have the last word. Even if the initiating party thanks those who participated it would be rude for the participants to not reply to such an offering.

Your post, for example, while being better suited for a private conversation, warranted a response as to provide the insight it appears to seek and to ignore it would be, in my opinion, rude. Granted, I could see how this could be held as somewhat arcane since such etiquette isn't something that is very prominent with online interactions.

I admit that I do occasionally reply solely as to not imply defeat or that I'm wrong, but that's something that I've done less frequently in recent years.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] agentorange631 7 years ago

One can't necro a year old thread by starting a conversation and then say that a response proves one's point. I'd wager you didn't even read my response. What do you want for your imagined accomplishment, a cookie?

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] agentorange631 7 years ago

Between the two of us, I'm not the one who necro'ed a year old thread, began a conversation, and then offered provocation when the person being spoken to took a course of action I was anticipating.

Realistically, where do you expect this to end? You know that I'll keep replying until I'm satisfied with the way things stand and, if you bother to look, you'll see that my vocabulary and reasoning abilities likely surpasses your own. In the end you necro'ed this thread hoping that I would reply so that you could get into a "pissing" contest with me, which is why you didn't send me a PM. You had no desire to participate in a meaningful or thoughtful exchange of ideas/beliefs/philosophy and people like you enjoy having an audience; even if only so they may witness how foolish people like yourself can truly be.

And, to be perfectly honest, I care not for how I appear to people such as yourself.

Your move, kiddo.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] agentorange631 7 years ago

Why is it so wrong to 'necro' a year old thread? Especially to make an observation about your character...

It's wrong because such an observation was much better suited for a private conversation, as I've previously pointed out at least twice already. Though that would prevent the fulfillment of your desire for others to readily see it.

Especially to make an observation about your character which seemed to obviously offend you enough to spitefully continue this conversation.

My initial reply to you was anything but spiteful or antagonistic as I clearly explained the psychological motivation behind my behavior. It was you, in point of fact, that then provoked my combative replies by carrying on like a child.

Again, your obsession with trying to have the last word, which you've done for most of these threads here have proven so...including this one.

And yet you begin something then take a track that you know full well prevents you from having any hope of having the last say; if I'm obsessed then that must make you delusional. Beyond that, my interactions on here and most other places don't fill my mind past the point of me interacting. Once done I consciously move on to the subsequent matter at hand, which precludes me from being "obsessed" with having the last word here. I actually seldom expect notification of reply.

And no, I'm not interested in a meaningful or thoughtful exchange. If I was, I would've replied to the topic, not made a crack at you.

Which really proves my point that you're simply a kid trying to get attention by "trolling". Especially since most people with a developed understanding and mature execution of social interaction recognise both how conversations work and that meaningful interaction can occur regardless of whether or not it pertains to the original subject matter.

And to be perfectly honest, I think it does matter to you. If it didn't, you wouldn't respond to me again. Go on then. Continue proving my point. Go on.

Emphasis should be on "does" not "perfectly", you've already illustrated that your cognitive ability is infantile at best, and you've failed to realise that I am able to partake in things that don't especially matter to me simply because I am able to, which is not to say I don't enjoy linguistically trouncing you. I'd also be careful what I wish for, if I were you.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cwaye222 7 years ago

You're being trolled so hard! He's absolutely right that you're one of those people who always needs to have the last post in an argument. How sad are you? The other guy on this page is right too that you are being a blow hard. Writing walls of texts doesn't make you smarter or better than the rest of us.

I disagree with you about Margo too. It's dumb to say the only way to be successful is to conform to society's norms.

[–] agentorange631 7 years ago

I'm getting the impression that English likely isn't your native language, which makes this marginally less fun, because I'd be completely astonished if you could quote one instance where I even reasonably appear to be offended.

I'm not bothered by this at all, I'm actually amused. I also find it amusing that you think I'm petty and a jerk, mainly because that better describes yourself once we consider your actions here. I've actually been fairly civil.

I've actually let plenty of things go, even when I should not have. Typing out my long-winded replies doesn't prove my intelligence, it displays it. My intelligence is proven by the content of my long-winded replies. Further, I'm not arrogant but self-confident as arrogance implies a false sense of one's abilities.

Yes, I may be the worst kind of user on this site; said the child attempting to upset people on a movie site.

If you'd like, PM me your address and I'll send you a copy of the Oxford English dictionary so that your next reply might be more accurate.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] agentorange631 7 years ago

You're being trolled so hard!

Yes, captain obvious, I came to that conclusion before writing my second direct reply to him.

He's absolutely right that you're one of those people who always needs to have the last post in an argument.

I actually admitted that he was mostly correct and explained why, not that either of you likely noticed (assuming either of you have the ability to comprehend it in the first place).

How sad are you?

I'm actually not sad at all, thanks for asking.

The other guy on this page is right too that you are being a blow hard.

That's fairly subjective, but not surprising.

Writing walls of texts doesn't make you smarter or better than the rest of us.

Of course it doesn't, my ability and precision in doing so, on the other hand, does; at least in one respect.

I disagree with you about Margo too. It's dumb to say the only way to be successful is to conform to society's norms.

The only way to be successful, in the societal sense, is to conform to society's norms and/or rules. There's a reason Margo is never happy and is always looking for something "else" and that's because she doesn't understand that the very actions she's taking to find fulfillment are the same actions keeping her from it.

[–] agentorange631 7 years ago

You're really reaching in trying to insult me now. Pathetic.

I fail to understand how you took that as an attempt at insult. The majority of the global populace doesn't speak English as their native language. Given your inability to understand basic points and rooting of a given stance either means you're not very intelligent or English isn't your first language. I assumed the latter because assuming you're simple is fairly cliche and presumptuous.

Except on this topic, it seems. I don't even get why you're clinging to this when it seems obvious that you didn't even like this movie? I mean, I could be wrong but that's my guess.

Yes, except on this topic. As to why I persist, I had not posted here for a year and then you directly replied to one of my posts. I received the notification, responded, and here we are. Actions and reactions, staff, actions and reactions. And no, I didn't much care for the movie.

You act like I'm TYPIN LYKE DIS or something, lol. I think you're starting to run out of material at this point. Maybe you should give up already.

I'd just like it if you put the effort in to at least use the right words when trying to insult me; very little you've said has even come close to actually applying. As far as my "material" goes, you've suggested twice in the same post that I concede, which implies that you're actually running out of responses. However, you're more than welcome to keep replying and we'll find out exactly how much "material" I have left.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] agentorange631 7 years ago

Because you're not offending me and, therefore, you fail? I can't believe you can't comprehend something so simple.

What about not being a native English speaker is supposed to be insulting? That's what I can't fathom.

My God, you're so pretentious, ha ha. And I love how you think you're being clever but, in reality, you just come off as an egotist. Oh well, I guess I'll keep going just to see how much longer you'll keep this pissing contest going.

That would be a great use of the word except I'm not actually trying to impress anyone, though I may be succeeding anyway if you think that's the case. As far as coming off as an egotist, I'd argue I'm coming off far more egocentric ; though I wouldn't regard being excessively proud of oneself an inherent negative either.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] agentorange631 7 years ago

You're so thick.

That's what she said.

Well, since a lot of people here you've argued against seem to think you're wrong about your opinion, I think you're not as successful as you may think.

Say you put eleven people in a room. Ten of them can't read or write and say that the letter "G" is not a "G" but actually a "Q". Now say that the eleventh person, who can read and write, says they're wrong. Who is right? Numbers alone don't make a party correct, it simply makes them numerically superior.

Is it possible for someone like Margo to lead a fulfilling/successful life? Sure. Is it at all likely? No.

You shouldn't be so proud of being a narcissist. It's actually not a very good trait to have since that implies you're obsessed with only yourself and your own achievements. Not the kind of member of society that people like or trust often. Just sayin'.

I'm still not seeing the downside to that, especially in terms of current social structures where the average person only cares about themselves anyway. And that is to say nothing of the studies that indicate that as we move forward as a society we'll be propagating sociopaths and narcissists because they're the ones that are most likely to be successful and self-motivated.

What you don't realise is that you're conversing with someone who can productively work not only with software but physical materials also. I've done everything from planning and designing assemblies in CAD programs to their physical fabrication out of wood, metal, and masonry. I've taken digital assets and filtered them through different processes in order to produce complex digital renders. I've done film and photographic works. Just recently I've started welding, both oxy-fuel and MIG. The majority of my knowledge has been self-acquired with no professional or formal training/guidance.

Beyond that, I'm fairly well versed in psychology and posses an advanced linguistic capacity. With any due respect, what you see as narcissism and egotism is actually personal assurance in my own abilities based on actual and first hand experience. And while you're more than welcome to post whatever you'd like, the odds of you achieving your goal here are marginal at best.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scaringi95 9 years ago

Steve is completely right there are well paying jobs out there that actually require work so people just make believe that there is nothing out there. Some people do seasonal work and move every 5-6 months. Just because it doesn't fit in with the way you "believe" life should be led has no bearing on feasibility.

[–] tom-gastoz-28 9 years ago

Actually i Know hell a lot of ordinary people(my entire generation and the one before) who spent their entire youth studying something they don't really like so at 28 they decide to change careers, and they begin from zero still living with their parents. So by comparison i think M has much more chances to succeed in life than a lot of her peers.

*SIXSEASONSANDATRILOGY

[–] agentorange631 9 years ago

What had they been doing the past decade that they have to start from zero?

"Succeed" also isn't very clear, as Steve redundantly outlined above, since success is measured by one's progress towards goals and not some empirical scale. Margo may, for example, be more adept or successful at wilderness survival than the average person but she likely won't be able to retire either.

[–] tom-gastoz-28 9 years ago

What had they been doing the past decade that they have to start from zero?

They're studying something they didn't really care about. Half my college classmates were accountant dropouts.

"Succeed" also isn't very clear, as Steve redundantly outlined above, since success is measured by one's progress towards goals and not some empirical scale. Margo may, for example, be more adept or successful at wilderness survival than the average person but she likely won't be able to retire either.

I think Margo's basic goal is to discover what's living outside her comfort zone or bubble and to live a life full of stories worth to tell. But that doesn't mean she won't make it on the real world. People who were thinking revolutionary and different are the ones who change the world not the ones who obey the rules. Also explain

but she likely won't be able to retire either.

*SIXSEASONSANDATRILOGY

[–] agentorange631 9 years ago

Except that even if they were half way through their MBA/masters in accounting that's still only 6.5 years. My point was that after a decade how do they have no money, plans, or means to change professions. What cataclysmic event do all these people share that forces them to start with nothing?

That's like saying "My goal is to know everything." It literally isn't possible because in both cases the amount of things outside that sphere of possession/experience is so vast it would take centuries to achieve it.

I've already explained this in my early replies to Steve above, it shouldn't be hard to find.

[–] tom-gastoz-28 9 years ago

1st I'm not here to explain an entire generation for you. Just google generation x and youll find it.

2nd The point of the post is to tell you that you can achieve in life even if you haven't plan it to every little detail. Margo just wanted to have a fun and uncompromising life. Why is that so hard to swallow? Even if she wants to start over at 28 or 30 or 35 she's pretty young and likely to succeed. Also a lot of people who do study their asses off when in college still have a hard life because whil they're academically smart, they still haven't figure out how to live their lives and accomplish their goals.

*SIXSEASONSANDATRILOGY

[–] agentorange631 9 years ago

It isn't my job to provide information about a topic you used to support your stance, that isn't how this works. Further, just because I can research something doesn't mean that it will prove your point. It is actually more likely to prove my point since I then control the presentation of it.

That's extremely vague since it neither gives context to what the desired achievement is or how hard it is to attain it.

The notion that one could even have a life without compromise is childish since everything you do is a trade-off. To boot, your examples keep relying on compromise by using people who have no or poor balance in their lives. Margo is no different since she has compromised, whether knowingly or not, her future for her present. It can even be argued that she still isn't happy and that such is illustrated by her drive to always seek out that next rush or thrill.

At the end of the day, people like Margo aren't fulfilled until they find what it is they're looking for and a large number put themselves through a lot of things they regret to find out just what that thing was/is.

[–] tom-gastoz-28 9 years ago

I didn't ask you to provide me any information, i don't need any since i'm the one who brought it up. I told you to do a little research if you need to understand the subject better because it wasn't the point of the conversation.

I don't understand what you're referring at.

Nobody told you that someone can live without compromising. Not everything is black and white.I told you that people can live their lives outside of the usual desires and still be really facking happy. She hasn't compromised her future. I dropped out of high school at 16 worked my way at a college after partying a few years and now im 23 and have a much better resume than my peers. And no i'm not talking about people withou balance in their lives.

And so if she always seeks for the great next adventure, what? Is that really so bad?

At the end of the day nobody is fulfilled until they're found what they're looking for.

*SIXSEASONSANDATRILOGY

[–] agentorange631 9 years ago

You expect me to research a subject to gain contextual insight into your argument, which isn't my job.

That's referring to the first sentence of your second paragraph.

Margo just wanted to have a fun and uncompromising life. ..... Even if she wants to start over at 28 or 30 or 35 she's pretty young and likely to succeed.

You directly imply she could have a life without compromise; ironically, only to later imply that she may regret it later which would be the motivation behind starting over (if her character chose to do such).

Living outside of typically held desires is not a new point and was already raised and agreed upon above between Steve and I.

You have a better resume than your peers in whose opinion? I don't know what country you're from but one can't typically go to a college level institution without first graduating at the high school level (which you make no mention of doing). Trade schools don't count as colleges.

Actually i Know hell a lot of ordinary people(my entire generation and the one before) who spent their entire youth studying something they don't really like so at 28 they decide to change careers, and they begin from zero still living with their parents.

This shows a critical lack of balance since the "ordinary" people you mention can't hold down a job while working to change professions, you lacked balance because you couldn't party and handle school, and the people studying so hard they lack social experience have no balance because they lack sufficient social experience to be successful.

And so if she always seeks for the great next adventure, what? Is that really so bad?

She'll never have anything meaningful aside from the chase of her next thrill. No lasting relationships, no lasting companions, no real stability, nothing. Some of these further underline her unhealthy psychological state as they're required for healthy mental development/existence.

At the end of the day nobody is fulfilled until they're found what they're looking for.

At the end of the day some people realize that running away isn't going to help them find what they're looking for.

[–] tom-gastoz-28 9 years ago

No I don't.You're just clinging onto arguments. You kept getting off point so i told you if you wanted to know about it do a research.

I didn't mean without any compromise. It's a figure of speech mostly. Imeant the least amount of compromise. Get it now?And i didn't imply that the motivation behind starting over is regret.She just decides to do something different or she won't have to.It doesn't matter.You still cling onto arguments.

I live in Greece. I am a cook. A really respectable and well paying job. And I'm also 22. At 22 most people haven't even graduated not talking about having resumes. I studied in a private college(don't know the american equivalent) and i have the same opportunities as anybody who didn't go off the rails like you think Margo did.

If you think I lack balance and not just dropped out of hschool cause i knew the last couple of years didn't really have anything to offer me, that's fine but it still proves my argument don't you think? Again with the clinging.

Her motives are stated in the movie. She thought that this life aroung her is fake so she ran.

I think your passionate bashing of the character indicates your unhealthy psychological state. Did a girl like that dumped you? Did you do the same thing and ended up nowhere? Or just dread your own life?
*SIXSEASONSANDATRILOGY

[–] agentorange631 9 years ago

Getting off point in your opinion. Just because you can't understand how my counters to points you brought up to begin with are relevant isn't my problem nor is it getting "off point"

Compromise isn't something can be minimized on a general level, which has been my point.

And i didn't imply that the motivation behind starting over is regret.

I wasn't saying you did. I was stating that it was, at least mainly, the result of altered realization during such actions.

From what I understand, culinary education in Europe isn't as formal in terms of secondary subjects and credit requirements. In the states there is a lot of extra padding that goes into such courses. High school graduation is also a requirement, which you would have had to meet.

The only thing it proves is that educational systems are different across the world. Your lack of balance comes from your usage of time ("parting"), not simply because you dropped out. It also implies a lack of searching for suitable alternatives to dropping out entirely.

That isn't her motivation, that is the reasoning for her motivation. Her motivation for leaving (running) was to find meaning and purpose (i.e. something real/true).

I'm not bashing her, I'm simply pointing out her flawed logic/reasoning and execution. All of which contributes to the chance of her ending up as a sex worker or a homeless person; which is what this thread is about. I think your inability to gain any ground, combined with the language barrier, is frustrating you and that you're trying to mask that frustration by attempting to shift the conversational focus.

[–] tom-gastoz-28 9 years ago

From what I understand, culinary education in Europe isn't as formal in terms of secondary subjects and credit requirements. In the states there is a lot of extra padding that goes into such courses. High school graduation is also a requirement, which you would have had to meet.

In my country you enroll in a private school and you graduate. That's it. Nobody ever gives a damn about what you did before, because it simply DOESN'T MATTER.

Your lack of balance comes from your usage of time ("parting"), not simply because you dropped out. It also implies a lack of searching for suitable alternatives to dropping out entirely.

I told u this to get a point which you clearly don't get. Not to talk about me.

I'm not bashing her, I'm simply pointing out her flawed logic/reasoning and execution. All of which contributes to the chance of her ending up as a sex worker or a homeless person

Saying her actions result in prostitution is bashing.

I think your inability to gain any ground, combined with the language barrier, is frustrating you and that you're trying to mask that frustration by attempting to shift the conversational focus.

Using formal vocabulary in a not-so-great movie's message board doesn't indicate intelligence. Quite the opposite.

*SIXSEASONSANDATRILOGY

[–] agentorange631 8 years ago

I understand.

I got the point, but you asked if I thought that proved your point. If you didn't want me to reply (or wanted to minimise the chance of reply then you shouldn't have posed teh question.

I've said, and maintain, her actions might result in that outcome. I don't recall ever saying, in any of my posts, that that outcome was a certainty.

Perhaps not; though my ability to not become frustrated and resort to petty quips does, according to Merriam-Webster's definition of "intelligence". I also believe I've demonstrated a "skilled use of reason", which is another definition. The fact that you even believe that using superior linguistic ability illustrates anything but an above average intelligence or, at very least, a desire to be better, is truly sad. I was simply acknowledging that English likely isn't your first language while also replying to your attempted provocation.

[–] tom-gastoz-28 8 years ago

WOW!!There's clearly something wrong with you. At every post you didn't even bother to understand my points, yet you idiotically answered. only twisting your earlier answers and clinging to every word. Your desperate choice of words demonstrates a rather simplistic behavior not an intellectual individual.

*SIXSEASONSANDATRILOGY

[–] agentorange631 8 years ago

There's at least one thing "wrong" with everyone. Just because I portray myself to be superior doesn't imply nor convey that I hold myself to be perfect and therefore I'm likely as flawed as the next.

You're unqualified to make a determination as to what I've internally tried. I clearly didn't outwardly agree with your statements though, so naturally you've taken that as idiocy and lack of will to see your side. I have, however, understood your side; I just see it as flawed and unfit for my agreement.

If you spent enough time to understand the meaning of "desperate" you'd see that yours is not an apt description of my usage nor choice of them. As for simplistic behavior; I disagree, though I am biased and have already confessed to not being perfect.

By the way, I should congratulate you on finally taking us completely off-topic; congrats.-~

I most eagerly awake your next reply!

[–] tom-gastoz-28 8 years ago

Just because I portray myself to be superior

No you don't

I just see it as flawed and unfit for my agreement.

You didn't give me any reasonable arguments nor understood mine

you'd see that yours is not an apt description of my usage nor choice of them

Interesting how you chose to up your linguistic level once you've run out of <arguments>

I should congratulate you on finally taking us completely off-topic

Then why didn't you got the conversation back on track?

*SIXSEASONSANDATRILOGY

[–] agentorange631 8 years ago

Except that that last section of your post from Oct. 18th says "Using formal vocabulary in a not-so-great movie's message board doesn't indicate intelligence. Quite the opposite." implying that I am portraying myself in a superior fashion compared to the (assumed) normal expectation.

In my last post I clearly admitted that I had just come to full understanding of your educational system. I would also remind you that it was you who can't seem to understand:

[agentorange Oct. 17th post]I'm not bashing her, I'm simply pointing out her flawed logic/reasoning and execution. All of which contributes to the chance of her ending up as a sex worker or a homeless person
[tom-gastoz Oct. 18th] Saying her actions result in prostitution is bashing.

Between those two statements mine is far more reasoned.

I pivot my word usage across several varied methods depending on what and how I want to express a given idea at a given moment. Doing such offers greater flexibility and depth in conveyance of my opinions/thoughts/concepts/understandings.

That works both ways. Say I ignored your off-topic comments and continued our exchange, you would take my disregard as acquiescence; I offer rebuttal and you try to shift blame. I wouldn't "win" either way; and considering that your reply to my on-topic post contained no on-topic counters, responsibility falls to you to get us back on subject. Simply offer counter to my last on-topic comments and we'll be back on subject once more.

[–] tom-gastoz-28 8 years ago

1.My post didn't imply any of that. It says "You're trying way too hard to come off as a 'superior' by using formal vocabulary and not trying to support your opinion with reasonable arguments".How much more clear can i say it? And no the fact that English is not my first language has nothing to do with this(except if you really wanna shift the blame somewhere).
2.You don't even know what country i am from and you argue about full understanding of my country's educational system? Talk about self-absorbed and self-righteous.
3.Ok let's just say you're not bashing her. Would you also disagree that you're not acting condescending and snotty towards her character?
4.Look number one.
5.Back on track. Why is that you believe that these people end up selling their bodies to live?If say M ends up dissatisfied with her life, why won't she just go back home to her parents but she will end up a prostitute? She's young, smart, beautiful and confident (characteristics most 'conventional' people lack of).She could live in the wild, doing odd jobs, choose a creative job or might even open her own business.Or if she has a change of heart(not a change of mind) she could settle and marry someone.But that's not her only alternatives.
*SIXSEASONSANDATRILOGY

[–] agentorange631 8 years ago

1.) It may not have been your intention but it was the meaning I understood. Perhaps part of the problem is you're saying one thing but meaning to say another. Just say what you mean. The fact that English isn't your first language isn't a detractor, simply a fact. There is no shame in it. I'm sure you speak much more clearly and fluently in your native tongue.

2.) You said previously that you went to school, at least partially, in Greece. Further that would make my egotistical not self-absorbed. I'll also admit that I should have worded it to show my fuller understanding of the differences of your educational system, instead of conveying I fully understand the overall system. This rules out the self-righteous part, though.

3.) No, I would agree that I hold a condescending opinion towards her character.

4.) Your reply here is not valid as #1 didn't speak to your blatant inability to understand something that was clearly reasoned and worded.

5.)I hold this view because it is what mainly occurs. Keep in mind the OP was asking what would likely happen in real life. While Margot might go back home it was shown that her parents had, more or less, washed their hands of her. She also wouldn't have any real formal job experience in higher income fields since she lacks a high school or college degree, which means she'd have to spend money to get those before even being qualified for something higher.

I'll grant you that while she is young, confident, and resourceful (I don't think she's "smart" or all that attractive to be honest but that's personal opinion) she hasn't ever truly been on her own before. Now that she is 18 her parents no longer have an obligation to be her safety net. I'll agree that she could live in the wild but again, creative jobs cost money to start because of the tools/items they require, as does opening a business. Someone like Margot doesn't typically have access to these types of resources in real life (at least in the US).

Even if she had a change of heart, she would still be restless mentally. Unless she happened to marry someone with a very similar mindset/outlook/perspective, I doubt it would be a lasting or happy union on account of the personality differences.

[–] tom-gastoz-28 8 years ago

1.I'm not saying anything i don't mean. I just have to explain them in a different way because every time you seem to understand something wildly different.Like i do now.I also didn't say that you don't get my points cause of my language. I said that you don't get my points and you're putting a partial blame on my language(i again have to explain something really facking clear)

I think your inability to gain any ground, combined with the language barrier, is frustrating you

2.Sorry, that's my fault actually. I really couldn't remember that i told you were i'm from. But still you can't say that you fully understand greek educational system. Unless you're from Greece which makes this whole conversation pointless.
3.Yes but why are you acting so condescending?
4.Every body's point of view is clearly reasonated and worded in his eyes. That's why you must make it clearer to someone else. Instead you just made it harder to understand.
5. a)It's a common secret that a large number of these kids end up homeless or doing sex acts but so a lot of educated people.
b)When you say homeless an image of a drunk,rag-clothed,wounded,hunchback comes to mind.There is also the chance that she'll live travelling from one place to another.
c)As to say sex workers are people who had facked their lives is kind of hypocritic since most of their clients are well-educated,rich,married,seemingly balanced and happy individuals who have a lot of respect from our society.
d)Bryan Adams, Sandy Adams,Danni Ahse,Dennis Albaugh,Paul Allenetc. Random successful people without a college degree.
6.Being freespirited doesn't mean that you are mentally unbalanced.
P.S.Our responses start to feel like essays don't u think?
*SIXSEASONSANDATRILOGY

[–] agentorange631 8 years ago

1.) My point was that one should be as clear as they can be initially so that retroactive clarification isn't needed later.

2.) No problem, I also said that I should have worded that remark differently. I agree that it did not convey what I wanted it to as best it could have.

3.) I view her character as very shallow and simple as far as movie characters go. That's the main reason why.

4.) Ironically not my intention. I actually use more "complex" wording in an effort to more accurately express thoughts. Obviously this creates an issue for people who can't understand the wordings but because of how I think I can't simplify those expressions while maintaining their accuracy.

5. A) While this is true it is the ratio that is important here and people like Margot are at the end with the higher likelihood.

B) Well, I speculate that she is wounded psychologically. I was really just speaking to the likelihood of her ending up without any place substantial to stay/live. She may move around but it won't be like one long camping trip in way of formal tents and wilderness.

C) There is actually a decent amount of work done into the psyche of people who frequent sex workers/watch lots of porn that show they aren't actually who they portray themselves as outwardly. They're usually as "messed up" as the people they're purchasing sex from (in one way or another).

D) Bill Gates (although he went and didn't finish). The basic point was that dropping out typically handicaps the person doing so. It doesn't make being successful/prosperous impossible, just much harder.

6.) I don't believe there is such a thing as a true free-spirit because everyone conforms to some kind of mold. You're right though, just because someone isn't what fits the norm doesn't make them unbalanced as long as they can actually find balance in their life.

lol My responses typically feel like essays, you get used to it eventually.

[–] deadlikeme74 8 years ago

She is a free spirit. It all depends how you look at it, someone like her would say that she has more options that someone tied down to a life with a job, paying a mortgage and raising kids. So what if she winds up as a waitress or working as a barista the rest of her life - as long as she can move where she wants, when she wants - why couldn't she be happy with that life if that is her personality? True life is not for everyone.

You just assume someone has to have a professional job and family to be happy. That was the life Q wanted, not her. If she wanted that life she could have stayed at home and hooked up with Q and been bored the rest of her life.

[–] agentorange631 8 years ago

She isn't a free spirit, she's impulsive and ignorant. One does not need to have a corporate job, kids, and a mortgage to be happy, no, but one does need a reasonable income to afford the flexibility you speak of.

Sure, she can go anywhere to live but the way she lives will be massively affected by her lack of education, knowledge, and relevant skill. As I've said previously, her low income bracket will relegate her to the lowest lifestyle, if not homelessness, in large cities. It will limit her to lower lifestyles out in the country, and it precludes her from suburban life almost entirely.

Further, how is being a waitress or "barista" (bartender) a fulfilling life? You'll meet people only briefly, have only the most superficial exchanges, and die having never been able to do the things you really wanted to do because of financial restrictions.

People like Margo trap themselves in the very system they believe they're escaping. Happiness may be many things to many people, but the vast majority of those things require a steady and respectable level of money.

[–] IronZombie 8 years ago

Why does everyone assume Margo will end up in such tragic circumstances? Who's to say she doesn't do all the things she wants for a decade then settle down like most people do? Why does she have to become a porn star or an abuser of men? Margo didn't do any of that, all she wanted was for Q to live a little, she never lead him on in any way.

I think we could learn a lot from Margo, too many people live their lives for the future rather then the present simply because they're too afraid of what will happen if they follow the road less traveled.

Margo didn't even show up for her high school graduation. What job is she going to get that will make her a decent amount of money? Where is she going to settle down exactly? I think her character was selfish. It wasn't about her wanting Q to live a little. She completely dragged him along without even realizing it, spouting her own theories and ideas into the mind of a kid that was hanging on her every word. And he completely misread every clue she left and chased after her.

---
 Idiots

[–] Cinnamon_83 9 years ago

I was thinking the same thing. I have a friend like Margo and I honestly believe that she is not as happy as she wants us to think. She has traveled around the world, that's cool, but she never stays very long on each place. She is studying a career, but it has taken her years to have it completed. She is not very close to her mother and I think that's the root of everything. She doesn't want to belong to anything or anyone, so she won't feel abandoned. She wants to believe that she and only she is in control. But she is not happy. How does she survive? She keeps taking ocasional jobs, like babysitting or teaching snowboarding and just go and drop by some friend's house. She loves when people refers to her as the wanderer or the free spirit. Guys see a challenge in "conquering" a girl like that. She likes the attention, but at what cost? We are all different and our goals are different too, but I think that this kind of life almost never has a happy ending. Some people settle down and others never seem to find their place in life and that's kind of sad. My cousin sees my friend as a role model, she admires her independence and way of life. But she is only looking at the surface. There is always something deeper in this kind of people.

Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?

[–] !!!deleted!!! (4524359) 9 years ago

You know I'm a guy but I still enjoy not staying too long at the same place. I don't feel rooted in any country, but don't assume we can't be happy because we don't live stable lives. That said, I'm nothing like that Margo character, she felt a bit selfish to me.

[–] adresher-1 9 years ago

For the record, I would not recommend anyone choosing to live a life like Margo chose. However, most people are wrong in saying that if you do you will end up homeless, broke, doing porn, etc.

Most free spirits like Margo usually spend a lot of time travelling, doing odd jobs until they find a place and a job they love. Once they find it they usually settle down and live a happy life.

If you were to visit a place like Hawaii or any island in the Caribbean, you will find numerous people like Margo who at first were living in a tent, but then found a job they love, have an apartment and now live a happy life in a place they love.

[–] Owiman 9 years ago

It's hard to say at 17-18 where she'll end up. I assume at the very end of the movie some years have passed and she's not returned. So we can maybe assume she's not going to take a degree.

She can still find a rich guy and live decent with him or basicly any guy with a job who will support her. She can work as surf or dive instructor for 10-15 years.

Working at wal-mart in her 30-40's is not the end of the world after all, as long as you don't have a family you can live off that salary. She'll never have much luxury later in life doing that atleast not until her parents die and she inherit some money.

[–] srenades 9 years ago

She's a girl. That answers your question right there. Life is very different for men then women. At the end of the day all she really has to do is find a rich, older man to take care of her. I applaud people who live like Margot because they truly experience life and what it's all about. "Paper towns with paper people." If that quote doesn't resonate with you, you are either too young to understand or a prisoner in your own life. At the end of someone's life when they're laying on their death bed I guarantee they will not regret living life so freely. This is most peoples problem - the innate need to conform to what they tell you is "normal" and correct". None of the way humans live is normal or correct, we're just hamsters in our cages waiting to die. A few lucky ones break away.