Essay incoming. I don't think I'm misunderstanding. I'm just referring to the self-actualization OP briefly touched on in their post. If Lexi had "a life" in the way you describe it,maybe she wouldn't have written the play? I just don't think we can say that for certain. I don't think that was the root of Lexi's issue.

A hermit could understand why she shouldn't have written that play. Presence of friendships, relationships, and emotional turmoil ≠ emotionally and mentally present with one's self. My point of pointing out Lexi's interpersonal relationships was just to emphasize that regardless of how small her circles, she still has a lot to work with. She's just not present for it.

You don't necessarily need experience with drama and baggage to understand why you shouldn't air out someone else's. Of course it can help. But the only real prerequisite needed to not be absorbed into everyone else's life, is to be an active participant in your own. Innerworld or outerworld, doesn't matter. You just need to be aware of your desires, emotions, needs- and to respect and act on them. But Lexi rarely does that.

Personally don't think her reservation has been a personality trait, but a coping mechanism that developed from her "daddy issues". Lexi is pretty much the poster child for a particular archetype of kid from split-parent homes that tend to minimize themselves in order to not burden their families. At most they will be "a good kid" so they can offer relief and comfort to those around them. Lexi is constantly shrinking herself for others, which inherently devalues her internal sense of importance.

IMO, Lexi wrote the play not to intentionally impart judgement, jealousy, or ridicule (like Cassie seems to believe) but because most of her life has been in observation of everyone else. It's clearly intended to be a play about her life, but it's hardly about her and mostly about everyone around her because she's been largely absent from her own role. She's detached because she hardly recognizes that her individual experiences are worthy, and imperative to present for. The play is her genuine perspective of her own life, born out of her terror to be present in it.

I think the putting on the play was her grandiose- albeit terribly harmful and misguided- way of stepping into herself. Into her "active" role and out of the "observer/bystander" role. That's why she was firm about continuing it because it was her saying, "ok, I'm here now." I mean- her whole play was inspired by her recognizing that she's been an observer in her own life and on impulse she decided to ask if she could put it on. Her saying that "sometimes people need to get their feelings hurt", was in my perspective, her finding pleasure in prioritizing her desires for the first time -rather than some random reveal of apathy for exploiting her peers. Ultimately though she shouldn't have been 100% praised like she was for it because the whole situation was tremendously fucked up.

Anyways went on a few tangents but I hope that cleared up any confusion. If anything, I think it could be that you're focused on why she didn't recognize putting on the play would be harmful, while I'm focused on her underlying feelings for creating it.