Stars on 45

I have encountered, last week, a challenging and relenting experience that came unto me by surprise--a chunk of it was given by a friend who manages to ridicule me whenever I go into THE ANGELITE’s office, saying and even recapitulating a litany of his annoying queries about the life of a student press, and the societal press at large. The encounter was a “near-to-smack” series and I was pinned down by the impetus of his queries which came, negatively, a serious attack about the profession of journalism.

He even bothered to ask an array of questions appearing like bad incantations casts upon innocent people who, in turn, will be caught by the horrifying genocide period. What is rather horrible was that he had even made fun by placing, side by side, his judgments between a theatre star (because he was an energetic servant of theatre entertainment) and a journalist (because I was inclined to it).

“Tell me, who is greater, a theatre star or a journalist?” he said inquisitively while munching the cheeseburger he bought. Well I came to explain that the two personalities have unique qualities, although, by the argument of opposites, each of them possesses distinct terms of resilience. But, he still insists the question. He, at this time, bannered his outlined conjecture that “theatre stars are great because they enjoy the fruits of affluence while journalists have nothing but an experience of wallowing into trouble and, no other less, just a petty cash made out from their “specialized” language. Pardon me; the person is a great product of misunderstood philosophy—having his own rendition of decent arrogance.

Knowing that tension will soon occur, I fused into an exit and my feet brought me into the threshold of the office. There, my wake was stunned both with the vibrant air and jubilant laughs of my editors and co-staffs together with the flashback of my encounter incessantly flashing at the back of my mind. Hey, I thought, it was definitely a different world. I must make some articulations.

What is good, as a point of articulation, is already a known fact brought by the conversation. The tension, that drove me to fuse into exit, is not a point of showing a weak and defeated dignity but rather, it was and it is an absolute dignity that journalists often show. For their works are sometimes products of emotional catharsis.

I’m not claiming the fame of a fully-defined journalist since I was specifically an exception more on as a juvenile figure to spot on. But, we have the basic skill to distinguish uniqueness without sacrificing the main idea of fair judgment. What does a theatre star acquired from his/her audiences’ applauses due to his/her magnificent performance could also be equated on how did the writer, particularly the journalists, enticed different moods of his/her readers made also by his/her magnificent performance.

Struggle is also a parallel idea. The theatre star must pass by into rocky roads to test the efficiency of his/her so-called Rolls-Royce of fame. But, how to start the Rolls-Royce’s engine is a tough job, for it is destined to satisfy the demands of artistry and to quench the audiences’ thirst of “near-to-perfect” performance.

The Rolls-Royce of fame would be efficient if it will be applauded. The Rolls-Royce of fame would be nothing if it will be bantered—a crucial point of articulation about the dramatization of life in the stage.

Moreover, the life on the stage couldn’t bear its significance if writers wouldn’t go on and watch the art transpiring on the stage. Journalists have this struggle, of keeping their noses on everything without considering the criteria of reluctance, for, as the Greek philosopher Xenophanes hath said, human knowledge is always replaceable by something that may be nearer to truth.

If the theatre dancers could emanate such perfect moves from their ballistics, writers could generate actions through the pen tinged with the fire of inspiration. For the theatre singers have their wealth jailed on their audiences’ minds, for these performers had strung love on their audiences’ hearts, writers have an equal distinction—of making influence by just a miracle of the pen.

For writers have their wealth, not only jailed on their readers’ mind, but also circles a moral inspiration, carefully entering the emotion and the passion of their readers and their critics. And it was a tough job to do such role for what the writer writes from the gestures of his pen is also a responsibility to ponder and carry on. Writing had the equality entailing both the tremendous effort of thinking what to write and the tiring process of how to write the idea.

I may sound like a broken record, but if we could think how really this two “stars” played roles to entertain, if not to enlighten, the society, it would bring us another fire of inspiration burning inside our hearts and its fumes thriving inside of our minds.

Differentiating, again, which is which between a theatre star and a journalist was, again, another question just like a good question on philosophy: Why is there something instead of nothing? But at this time we could find obviously the differences; for each of them, as I’ll reiterate, enjoy distinct qualities.

We can always learn more than we know, but we can never be sure that we have reached any final truth.