There's something to be said about mediocrity.
We always hear about successful, capable people with a zillion achievements, especially now during the university's campaign season. While I don't doubt their greatness, I think there should also be some admiration for the elegance of mediocrity. By mediocre, I don't mean completely lukewarm at everything, but mediocre simply because social norms for success were not exactly met.
There is a certain feeling one gets about this mediocrity. A person may not be a leader - may not be quite sociable or completely personable or notably smart, but admirable for their other unique qualities. I know people who have so much to offer in one field or another, or who exude brilliance at the most random things, and yet fall into the category of mediocre simply because they are not great people in society's myopic view. They might not feel the pull of influence and power, or might not find value in standards. It might even be the case that their excellent traits are overshadowed by their failures.
You could say that they're wallflowers this way, but I for one feel jealous of them. Once you adhere to society's standards, you either continue or face disappointment when you stop being good enough. It is these binding constraints from which mediocre people are free. They have not adhered, and now they don't need to. Brilliance needs no measurement, anyway.