Dreams were always revered and dreamers were the few. Dreams had a certain elevated value. They came with a certain price. You'd see a man who desperately scrambled a few, a few that only seemed worth his worth, and then become the start of a great dream that realised. That, in a generation when dreams weren't taught and to dream was not really in. When you either were up there or way down here and there were no tools to deal with it, except that you could try and make it and you would either make it, not make it, reach, at best, somewhere in between, or fall far behind.
Well, welcome to new generation. Here we teach our young 'uns to dream. If they don't have a dream, we give them one that is better, cooler, crazier and bigger than the last one. If we can't afford any of those, we just give them one that ends up paying the bills.
Here is the catch. Right from school, lofty ideas of things to be and people to be like are driven in to the head. To reach for only the stars and higher. Perhaps, when we say that, we leave them in a state of limbo. We can never really reach for the stars and we will die trying to do that. It is not exactly the case, if you look at the repercussions in Gen X, that they have understood it to be AT BEST a idiom. Whatever they understand it as a metaphor to be, whether it means outdo the guy next to you or your best is never enough, there is now a problem.
The problem is this. We have been putting stuff in their heads before they could even think. So, beyond a point when stuff is not their heads, it is a state of confusion. And if whatever was there goes, there has to be a replacement. And that replacement has to come fast because then there will be a state of greater confusion because that replacement is not coming fast enough.
Might I suggest that we'd rather not plant stuff in their heads, especially when they have not decided what they are actually made up of? Or are we to decide what they are made up of? Perhaps school shouldn't be called school. I think we take the name way too seriously and end up exactly schooling them. What if we let them figure themselves out, whether they are worth the dream or not? Whether they are indeed worth the plant that we'd like to plan inside them? After all, they will be the ones who will follow through.
Better, let us let them choose what they want to plant in their heads. Let them desire, whether it will the stars they aim for, or if the glory of that particular challenge is or is not really up their alley. Do we let them discover their alleys enough for them to figure out what they are made up of in the first place? Given the trend, the corporate world that awaits them laps them up with excitement, one that is reciprocated almost immediately. They are happy that we start manufacturing their brood well in advance.
What, now, is the big deal about a big dream? What are dreams worth? Is the dream only worth the dream being realised? Or is the dream worth the dreamer? Are we to die for the dream? Or is the dream a result of being such a dreamer? Without the dreamer, there would be no dream. With no dream, we all would just die so we just have to have one. And we can't settle for anything less than the best, even if it's a long way off. Just for the sake of it. It serves the entertainment of the mentality that we have been taught that we shouldn't be goalless, directionless and such. Oh no! That shouldn't ever happen.
And who's to say what a dream is and what is not? Maybe if Shakespeare wrote a play on it and it would have become a line which encourages this very aberration subjectively and puts it aside letting the Great Games of Dreaming go on.