A Nerd Fallacy

[sistermagpie]

I threw out a little theory on Fandom!Secrets that had to do with something I've been thinking about lately...I hesitate to say it because it’s a simple answer for a complicated thing done by many different people, but I still wonder if there's not a strain of this in fandom.

The secret expressed annoyance at how "complete and utter moron has become acceptable for characterization in fandom for Captain Kirk." And it reminded me of similar things coming up for other characters. I sometimes notice something similar in Bat-fandom too. Sometimes I wonder if it's a nerd thing.

It feels sometimes like the jock/nerd conflict has become a really overriding obsession. It's definitely more obvious in movies and TV. I can't count the number of times I've run up against comments about how people are "you're just like the mean girls in high school" and "I've always been the outsider and not one of the cool kids." And that's maybe fandom being wanky but I've seen it projected onto canons as well.

Basically, it sometimes seem to work like this: If you've got two characters and one of them has more qualities that map more closely onto the "nerd" stereotype, that's the character more people will identify with, and sometimes he'll then be characterized more like the fan. Then in subtle or not so subtle ways, he'll be seen as superior. A character with more in common with the jock stereotype--even in small ways--might not be disliked, but he'll be inferior in the way all those cool people in high school and athletes are supposed to be. I don't know if it's as simple as believing that if you have gifts like athletic ability, classic good looks or social success they must be paid for by a lack of brain power and imagination and even sometimes compassion. Or maybe it's that anybody who'd be more interested in that sort of thing must be not as smart or not as interesting?

I don't think it's that simple and I'm not sure it's always about people mapping their own personality onto the character. I wonder if there's also just a preference for obsessive characters. Like, a lot of fandom is obsessive in a colloquial sense. I've said before one of the things I always think is cool about the Dick/Tim relationship in the Batbooks is that they were both created as self-insert characters for comic readers, but from different generations. Tim is more into computers, silently followed Batman and Robin around, collects information and souvenirs, and excels at the analysis part of the job. Dick, created in 1940, has a specialized background as a circus performer and other than that is more well-rounded: he's a bright student at school, and at detective studies, likes hanging out with friends and has a room full of trophies.

I've definitely seen that nudged into "won the genetic lottery for physical talent so can’t keep up with the brain stuff." Likewise his relative well-roundedness, lack of darkness and mental stability often almost seem to be taken as...not weaknesses, but not really strengths either. It’s like you can’t really be superior if you also fit in with the cool people. Or it's like it's not intelligence unless it comes in these extreme swerves from obsession into cluelessness. Like either you're the person who knows everything except for stuff you've decided isn't important, or you're the person who has very little specialized knowledge at all. (Unless it's brought out for a joke about the strange reason you know it.) (I should also note here that I understand these things being weaknesses *for a character*--like you just aren't as interested in an even-keeled character as you are in an obsessive one. But here I'm talking about judging the character objectively inferior, not just less appealing to a particular reader.)

It's frustrating because the Enterprise and the Bat-family are all made up of brilliant people. They just have different strengths. And they work together and learn from each other. They’re not ranked in terms of talent and ability. They’re united through a common purpose, around which they’re all completely different and equal. Their talents overlap enough that they can take over for one that’s missing. They can cover another person’s strength, it’s just not the same as having them all fire on all cylinders. And all their strengths are important. Being the most talented leader isn’t less valuable than the most talented engineer. Sherlock Holmes is awesome. But if he teams up with James Bond, James Bond doesn’t become Watson because he doesn’t have Holmes’ talents.

In fact, as I mentioned recently, it’s like that ep of Leverage where team members are isolated in situations that don’t lend to their strength. But since they’ve become a team they’re even stronger, even if they’re not together. But the two in trouble save themselves by asking, “What would [absent team member] do?” This is what competency porn is, people! The more competence there is, the better the porn!

Comments

[lilacsigil.livejournal.com]

This is what competency porn is, people!

And that's why I love Leverage!

Honestly, I don't see this dynamic very much, but I'm not much of a shipper, so maybe that's why. Or maybe because I'm not American, and the nerd/jock thing isn't very important in Australia (at least, sports are very important, but they're played by adults, not high school kids, and there's no "college scholarships" on the line).

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It seems like it got important here in the past few decades. I mean, yeah, there's always been the idea of strong guys and weak guys or whatever, and socially competent people always had an edge in that area over socially incompetent. But it doesn't reflect my high school experience at all.

[schmevil.livejournal.com]

Sherlock Holmes and Bond would make a singularly terrible team! :)

I've seen this happen way too often, in everything from shipfic, to gen, to meta, to just prevailing attitudes about characters. Dick is the pretty boy. Tim is the obsessive, super-competent, Batman in training. Not to say that there aren't fans who appreciate all of Dick's talents and qualities, but what you've outlined here is all too common. Sometimes I wonder if it's (in addition to your excellent points), you know, bad writing and bad reading - a need to make one character worse, so your favourite is better, because you as a writer/reader can't juggle the awesome?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I remember talking to somebody a few months ago who was explaining how Tim was just so superior and I just had to say look, this whole paragraph is just promoting your favorite character over others and putting them down to make him better. Which is so unnecessary. I don't mind the basic idea of "Tim might become Batman" because it can be an interesting dynamic to have the older kid be different from the dad etc. But sometimes it really quickly morphs into Dick being unnecessary, like a failed experiment on the way to Tim the True Heir and True Son.

It's not only dismissing Dick's character but Tim's too, really, just making him this hyper-competent robot that he isn't.

But exactly, sometimes it's like people can't juggle the awesome. And that just means less awesome for everyone and no one wants that.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

You definitely see this dynamic in Supernatural. I mean, neither one of those guys could ever pass for "nerdy" but it's always been Sam who's been portrayed as the more intellectual one while Dean is the sort of dumbass who relies more on brawn and luck than brains. I thought this was even more noticeable in the first few seasons when Sam was still carrying around his college-boy vibe. There are times that both of them seem so dense that it's a miracle they aren't dead yet but it's usually Dean wearing the duhhh expression on his pretty, pretty face.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh god, yeah. I can't believe I wasn't even thinking of that because I've seen that too. Dean very often has that dull expression on his face--and sometimes people freak out if he makes a reference to something, as if he's supposed to have been raised by wolves.

[savagedamsel10.livejournal.com]

How funny I found this post right on the very same day I was going through old ferretbrain articles and found Kyra's Soon I Will Be Invincible review. In her review she was noting how a lot of comic book readers often end up kind of sympathising with the villain when superheroes start reminding them of the "cool kids in high school". And that made me think of all the times whenever I hear of people complaining about much-loved comic book villain Doctor Doom getting bested by a clearly silly joke-superheroine Squirrel Girl in a one-off humourous story written yonks ago.

I guess I could understand how fandom might relate towards obesessiveness, but it's really too bad everything becomes such a zero-sum game with lots of either/or. But then again, maybe a lot of writers are just too creatively lazy/unable to try writing stories where everyone is allowed to be competent and strong in different ways and still have drama so everything becomes a pissing match and it bleeds into fandom.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It is too bad--but it really is something that comics, especially, need to do because they've got all these superhero stories that turn on the same neverending battle that the good guy has to win. Sometimes I forget how much some comic fans are into that whole aspect too, like the people who have conversations about who would beat who. Sometimes I get it--there are some heroes who are clearly ranked in terms of their ability at certain things. But most of the time it's more about what the story's about and what it's saying.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Obsessiveness and also social awkwardness or misanthropy generally. I think that's what actually separates Kirk and Spock, that Kirk is incredibly good at all social niceties. (The implication is that Bones can be but does not always choose to be.) Spock is the outsider, the one who isn't always sure about the unspoken in social situations. Kirk has an incredible social instinct, not just for picking up the ladies but for diplomacy in general. (Picard does too, of course, but he's not represented as a genius, but more a very good, experienced captain who can do all this shit blindfolded.) That's why Spock isn't captain yet.

But what grew out of K/S was this simplification into the cowboy/nerd shipping like McShep. And of course, Sheppard is quite smart, I think he has an MS or something and went to the Air Force Academy but don't quote me on that. Anyway, Sheppard is more like Watson, in that he is very intelligent but just isn't a genius like Holmes/McKay. And when you identify with the misanthropic genius, it isn't just that Watson and Sheppard aren't geniuses, but that they waste the brain power they do have with understanding social situations; real geniuses have no time for this! When of course if you look at at least the Holmes canon, Holmes is glad that Watson does notice these things and is there to grease the wheels.

So how can Kirk be a genius if he's also very good in social situations and also gets into bar fights and drinks a lot and sleeps with a lot of ladies? That can't possibly be wish fulfillment! So he must not be that much of a genius.

That said, I think the OP of the secret was reading stuff I'm not reading. McCoy is not a genius, but an awesome doctor, so Kirk can be a genius in K/Mc. nuTrek K/S may be different.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I definitely think the social aspect is sometimes the most damning. And just that whole...what you totally describe here. First that there's a resentment of people putting their minds towards social situations at all, caring about those sorts of things. It's hard not to relate that to the many metas I've read about people who definitely want to be seen as the person who can't do that, who just doesn't have that ability (even though it's really not being presented as an ability but the sign of a weaker character), or claims that fandom social groups are based around completely different things that reject all of that. Which is why it's sometimes funny to read the many things about the first part, where people talk about BNFs in fandom being those cool kids because it's like some people need that story in their lives no matter what. Like it's more about their defining themselves as being shut out by this vague concept of "cool" than whatever is really going on. Heh. Like there was that one person who did a whole history of the BNF clique and I remember it reading like it was written by some sort of alien who didn't believe people could ever become friends without it being part of some master plan.

Or also Archie and Nero Wolfe where Archie is totally the Watson character, and he doesn't share Nero's particular genius (or the crippling rigidity that goes with them) but you'd be a fool to think of Archie as dumb just because he makes that part of his persona as much as Nero makes his quirks part of his. Archie's facility with language and his ability to understand people is a form of high intelligence in himself.

I definitely think McCoy has an advantage there being a doctor, though. Doctor is a specific skill that people can appreciate while keeping within its limits.

[musesfool.livejournal.com]

Heh, according to this paradigm, you would think in SPN that Sam's geekery (at least as alleged by Dean, who is clearly just as geeky, if in different directions) and his brilliance (getting into Stanford with the kind of patchy transcripts he must have had) would lead to him being more loved by fandom, but sadly, not so much, especially not these days. *pets poor Sam*

The writers, otoh, clearly play up dumb!Dean way more often than they should (on the third hand, they write both boys as dumb as a box of hair so often it's a wonder the world hasn't actually ended already).

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

That is really interesting. Oselle reminded me of that too. And though Sam isn't the more popular (*pets poor Sam with you*) you do still see the "dumb Dean" vs. "Smart, geeky Sam" coming out there, even in the show like you said.

I wonder if part of Sam's problem is that he's not genius enough to be the nerd character. Like, if he was more difficult, more Sheldon-like (from BBT) and less socially capable in his dealings with people--and Dean--he'd be that character. I know I have read plenty of individuals who sort of lost interest in the show because it didn't go more that way. They seemed to think it was going to be more of Sam the very powerful but different dealing with his gifts that set him apart, and when it turned into what they considered the Dean Show they felt that wasn't what they signed up for and it was less interesting.

[leianora.livejournal.com]

OH my gods! I am sooooo guildty of this! I write Faramir as the fragile one, the one who knows the higher Elvin language of Quenya, the one who isn't very good at soldiery type things unless he has to be.

I write Boromir as the blithely dummer brother who, though he is older and very protective of Faramir, has no idea about poetry, literature, or anything related to the scholarly world.

Funnily enough, when I write Aragorn, he is very, very good at both of these types of things. Hmmm...

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Hee! Hey, there's a reason these tropes are appealing! I just love that you related it to Boromir and Faramir because OMG, yes, that totally works!

[godspoodle.livejournal.com]

Hahaa speaking of awesome. You've made my day. Competency porn, indeed.

I think you've loosened up a bit since the old days. I like it!! :D

[godspoodle.livejournal.com]

PS: I feel slightly superior 'cause apparently those stupid!Kirk people are reading Kirk/Bones and not Kirk/Spock... I don't see this phenomenon in most of the nu!K/S I've read, and indeed I see people writing Kirk as a math/programming genius a little too much (I mean, he's smart, but why does he have to be *that* smart in *that* way?). I think you could blame the movie & Kirk saying and doing re: finishing the Academy a year early and his high test scores reference, but. I mean, I'm getting tired of genius!Jim, I dunno. Moron!Jim is just hilarious, though; but basically I don't think pairing him with Spock makes that inevitable at all. Granted I haven't read *that* much fic? But I think in this case it's less pairing him with the nerd (ie, Spock) and more pairing him with someone who tops him and is apparently 'rugged' (Bones, I guess) making it necessary that Jim be more vulnerable/goofy/moronic (and thus needing of advice/rescue/whatever). I'm guessing. I think the point of K/S shippers is that Spock inspires Jim to new heights and they're a more awesome team together, not that Spock is superior to Jim and therefore lords it over him. I don't even know how anyone can parse that. So even if Spock tops him, it's not (that I've seen) in a condescending way; I mean, it's just such a huge compliment for Spock to like you, Jim *has* to be super-smart/awesome, or otherwise why would Spock bother? It's like, if they identify with Spock's genius-nerdiness so much, they would know that moron!Jim is soooo not a turn on. At all. Jim has to be 'worthy' of Spock, more like, and so they go the other way and make him 'too smart' in the wrong way and also (in a different way) don't accept that differens strengths are OK. With Bones, there's not so much of a 'deserving' thing, maybe, so it's ok that Jim is an idiot 'cause Bones kinda thinks/treats him as an idiot in some ways already (like he needs a keeper, a shot in the neck/ass/etc).

There's a lot of competency porn in K/S; partly 'cause Jim is captain and he gets to feel smug/possessive about the competency of his whole crew on top of his own huge ego. :> :> heh. I feel smug, yes.

As someone not American

[jazzypom.livejournal.com]

and watched the original Star Trek series (as well as most of the movies, and the various series in the 1990s), no lie, this version of Captain Kirk was well... he was an asshat. Like his asshatness jumped out at me from the get go (and this is not even taking into consideration the deleted scenes from the movie). He was the typical American male lead, you know? I guess in the series they had more time to flesh out his character, whereas in the movie they had to fall into various tropes. Loss of father figure, long suffering mum (I assume), conflict with stepdad, him being bright and cocky? In a way I wonder if that's how America (in general) sees itself - as the action heroes that he (America always seemed more of a 'he' than a 'she', like how Germans call their country the Fatherland) exports. It would explain the GOP's foreign policy (lived in the Caribbean whilst Regan was POTUS and that was... interesting).

Re: As someone not American

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I think that's definitely in there. Kirk's kind of a cowboy and he totally embodies that cowboy image of the American leader. He doesn't play by the rules, he goes by instinct. He's very much an individual trusting himself above everything else at times.

And Nu!Kirk really did play that up. It was an affectionate thing I think, but he basically was walking around begging for somebody (a father figure) to smack him down. It's like he couldn't put himself in order so he had to walk around getting cockier and cockier until the guy who represented what he wanted to be showed up and spoke to him in his language. It is a really American character, definitely.

I was editing this government pamphlet once that was an overview of American lit, and since it's such a young country you can see the actual creation of "American literature" and the primary story was the guy who didn't fit in with society, the hero as individual, who left society behind to be himself, that sort of thing.

[artystone.livejournal.com]

Greendale Community College

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

;-) It's technically where I was while I was writing this!

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

Sherlock Holmes is awesome. But if he teams up with James Bond, James Bond doesn’t become Watson because he doesn’t have Holmes’ talents.

Watson's actually another example of this, IMO, helped along considerably by his relegation to doddering comic relief role in the Basil Rathbone & Bigel Bruce movies. I think a lot of people forget that, in canon, he's the one who's supposed to have written all the stories (plus, being a doctor, you know?). There tends to be this asumption that because he's not as smart as Holmes, he's clearly just dumb, when actually Watson is reasonably intelligent and very competant in his own field of expertise. Not being as smart as Holmes is like being a Marvel-verse character who's not as smart as Reed Richards -- nobody's as smart as Reed, because Reed's a genius. (Just like nobody on the Enterprise is as smart as Spock)

Actually, it's odd that Reed doesn't get more fannish love, given that he's exactly the sort of brilliant-but-poorly-socialized obsessive genius fandom generally flocks too. Maybe he's not snarky enough, or suffers from a fatal lack of a sufficiently pretty guy to slash him with (Ben Grimm and Doom both being awesome but not very pretty).

[pauraque]

This is what I was going to say, but I checked first to see if someone else had said it! Watson is absolutely an example of the phenomenon we're talking about.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Ugh, I hate people fetishizing poor social skills.
I mean, sure, honour knowledge, and if you have poor social skills, it's not like it's the worse thing in the world, there are all kinds of skills the world values, but it seems like people so often either pretend the problem doesn't exist (ie. if they're experiencing difficulties with others, it's down to a reason that shows their superiority, like mainstreamers are jealousy of their intellect/beauty/insert awesome quality here.) or else actively make it a positive (I wouldn't want to fit in with those popular kids, I'm too different and special!
Like, everytime you read an interview with an actor or pop star nowadays, it's always them talking about what a nerd they were, like you'd be that awkward and then decide 'You know what I'd like? A career where I constantly deal with people!')
People who are truly isolated aren't just 'Oh, I got picked last in gym, and there were people more popular than me!', people who feel sorry for themselves for that don't realise that that's 99% of humanity's experience - they're people who almost certainly struggle with basic social skills for whatever reasons, which isn't sexy or glamorous like the whole 'outsider image', it's being unable to read social cues.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

OMG, have you noticed that too? I always laugh at how every single model and movie star had to be an outcast. One reason I've always liked Meryl Streep is I remember reading somewhere that she was basically...not super popular I don't think, but yeah, she was a cheerleader or something, just a normal girl who was socially successful. She didn't actually need to be a misunderstood genius to be a really good actress.

But my favorite was this classic article about Gwyneth Paltrow I read after she did Emma. I must have mentioned it before because it blew me away it was so annoying--not entirely GP's fault, even, but I've never been able to watch her since. And it was hilarious listening to her try to talk about herself as having suffered socially in school when what she was describing was clearly popular group infighting? Which yeah, that can be hard too, but why not just say that instead of trying to couch it in terms of Gwyneth being an outcast she clearly wasn't?

[ava-jamison.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes and yes!

It feels sometimes like the jock/nerd conflict has become a really overriding obsession.

::nods::

I do think there is some kind of a preference for obsessive characters, but for me that's connected more to story--keeping me involved in the story by making the character have a real stake in whatever's happening. (Like a character who's obsessive about solving the story's problem.) But I get that you’re talking about a different kind of obsession. I hate when they make the character say, have poor social skills or get nerdier and nerdier for no apparent reason other than they want to make it about some kind of nerd/jock conflict, which I do agree, in some stories, seems to be an overriding obsession to fulfill.

Or take established characters and force one into each side of that nerd/jock equation, just to have that contrast. Instead of going for something more interesting.

And I hate the idea that in order to fit in this one group, you have to not be a member of the other group. Talk about cliques! Being a member of the nerd group or geek group seems to currently have as many rules as being thought of as 'successful' or well-rounded or whatever you want to call it—the group that’s the ‘not geeks’/’not nerds’?

The more competence, the better the porn indeed!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

So true about both groups. When I was reading an article recently about Big Bang Theory, about how the show got better when they made Penny more of a character, it seemed like it was a great way of showing that just because you don't have goofy hobbies that are fandomish--like comics, gaming, scifi etc.--doesn't mean you can't have just as funny hobbies. Like in the article it said something about how they brought out that Penny had a background in Junior Rodeo or something and I thought--see, that's awesome. But sometimes they make it as if there's the kids in the comics club and the kids who do junior beauty pageants and nothing in between. Or that nobody ever mixes the two because they just happen to like Star Trek despite being good at football. It happens.

[evalangui.livejournal.com]

Competency porn... wow. Is that what I think it is? (someone's sexy because they are competent?) It could totally work for me if it is.

The whole "putting the other down to put yourself up" strategy is pretty old, culturally (Nietzsche's "slave morality" (http://readingz.livejournal.com/259755.html#cutid1) is mostly about that), and I think I have seen it in fandom and canon. In SGA there's the absolutely rational scientist & the sekretly really smart Air Force Major and I kept feeling that the show liked the scientist better (he got the girl, for one thing, and even if the other guy had the Captain Kirk rep he actually slept with 3 people in the 5 seasons, 1 more than Mr. Genius, which I adore myself) and the scientist himself stated that what redeemed the military guy was being smart even if he didn't use it (not saving the scientists and everybody's lives again and again, not being a good leader). I often use this standard myself but I am aware it's a way to justify how I'm not that good at sports or socializing and a personal preference.

You know in which fandom I think the opposite happens, though? The Breakfast Club, that fandom's (and the canon) a loveletter to the streetsmart guy, over the nerd (who the fandom likes and the movie is kind of "meh" about) and over the actual jock. Maybe it doesn't count because he's just a different type of outsider...

The outsider can't not attract, though, because he's alone he's an individual and that's what makes you connect to somebody, plus outsiderness causes conflic, thus it's interesting while being a jock seems (from the outside!)like a very easygoing existance.

Sorry to babble, thanks for the insight :)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I heard the phrase in a thing written by one of the writers of Leverage. They said they always worried about eps where the felt nothing happened because there was too much explaining and going over the case. But then reading the 'net they realized that viewers *adore* scenes of very smart people who are really good at what they do bantering back and forth as they plan what to do. He called it competency porn. People are sexy because they're competent and it's also just great to watch people being competent. I've since applied it to a lot of shows I watch like Top Chef or Project Runway where I just love watching talented people do what they do well. I can't do it but I love watching them do it!

I have definitely seen it in canon too, but thanks so much for that note about the Breakfast Club. I had never even considered that before! Yup, people do love the Outsider. I remember some article where the actors were all asked which character they would be in that movie and of coures they all said Ally Sheedy---the total outsider.

[undomielregina]

As a fan of TOS, I read this while going "but Kirk can't be that dumb! Spock plays chess with him!" I mean, really, of all the characters to pick.

I'm also interested by how much SGA fandom seems to have avoided this -- the fact that John is smart enough to be a member of MENSA is a big deal in fanon. On the other hand, I think I've seen a fair bit of this with Jack O'Neill when he's paired up with Daniel. Sam is probably too socially competent to invite the same Flanderizing.

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

I'm also interested by how much SGA fandom seems to have avoided this -- the fact that John is smart enough to be a member of MENSA is a big deal in fanon

Hmm, well, John occasionally escapes the dumb stick, but a lot of other characters suffer in comparison to Rodney, like Zelenka or even Carter. And I hate the way Ronon and Teyla are often characterised as too low-tech to understand anything, even though canon shows Teyla as perfectly capable of handling computers. Ronon is cast as the dumb grunt in canon sometimes, but it's even worse in fanfic.

[parsimonia.livejournal.com]

The secret expressed annoyance at how "complete and utter moron has become acceptable for characterization in fandom for Captain Kirk."

Those people need more poetry-quoting Shatner!Kirk in their lives, apparently. lol

Uhg, the mean girls/jocks vs. nerds is such a tired trope, which I've rarely found to be something I can relate to, because it's never been a true-life experience for me. I've only ever seen those types of rigidly defined social hierarchies and divisions in teen movies and on TV.

I think it's partly due to a desire to categorize things and people, because by doing so, they're simpler, easier to understand and judge, easier to decide how to treat them or react to them. Except, that's total crap, because in reality no one is a total nerd stereotype and no one is a total Mean Popular Girl or Super Cool Rebel or Stupid Successful Jock, or whatever. And portraying fictional characters as such makes for cheap and shallow stories, generally (though there are probably exceptions when dealing with parody, but even there it can just end up reinforces the original shallowness).

I think, because the "cool" character is so often played as a despised oppressor and made the villain, by contrast the nerd, the underdog, is the one who's portrayed as the "special snowflake*" you want to see win, and therefore becomes the character more people want to identify with. (Mind you, the whole thing gets turned on its head in a kind of messed up way in Potter fandom.)

*

I think one of Dick's biggest strengths is that he's got emotional intelligence, both in terms of perception and interacting with others, which often overlaps with typical "popular kid" traits. That kind of emotional intelligence is a skill and a strength that is often something the nerd stereotype lacks.

Interestingly enough, it's also a trait that is often assumed to be inherent to women. Which, now that I think of it, reminds me of an aspect of misogyny I've seen espoused by other women, and it's making me wonder if that's partly why Dick gets the "can't keep up with the brain stuff" treatment.

That is, the kind of attitude that consciously rejects anything deemed to be feminine or "girly", be it art/creativity/fashion, healthy social networks, cooperation, interest in romance, paying attention to other people's feelings, dance and gymnastics, etc, in favour of supposedly more masculine things like fitness, logic, being a lone hero/not needing others, "hard" science, combat training, etc. Basically, the assumption made is that the girly things are all frivolous and worthless and to be looked down upon, and all the masculine stuff is better and worthier.

And when comparing Dick and Tim, Tim falls more into the "masculine" traits than the feminine ones. And while Dick certainly does fit into that masculine group of traits, he also has plenty of those feminine traits/interests too, far more than Tim or Bruce does.

It's silly and sad that those traits that are thought to be feminine get denigrated.

Okay, I've got myself on a tangent here, so I'll stop rambling.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I hadn't thought of that.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

Your citing of the nerd/jock dichotomy is an excellent point (it's starting to become the fandom-specific version of the virgin/whore dichotomy), but I think you're also dealing with the magnifier of the fact that fandoms of all stripes are now living in a post-Adrian Monk and Greg House world, in which intelligence itself is at once regarded as a sort of handicap in its own right and as a carte blanche license to act like a dick toward everyone around you.

Which, perhaps not coincidentally, is how many "self-diganosed" Asberger's sufferers on the Internet see their own supposed condition.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

OMG, the fandom-specific version of the virgin/whore dichotomy. That is awesome. And yes, I was definitely thinking of characters like Monk and House and the way they relate to others. And all the people on the internet who can "relate" to that. ::shudder::

[http://users.livejournal.com/_inbetween_/]

That's upset and usually driven me away in fandom, HP and SGA as well, mostly because it's never acknowledged. It's a fact, a given, the "nerdy" character is over time elevated to godlyness, lovers are morons who have to take that monike as the biggest endearment. James Bond needs to be crippled beyond recognition for crimes against nerdiness in order to become worthy of even Watson.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Crimes against nerdiness--yes. I'm not in SGA but Snape definitely gets the genius-nerd cred that makes any nastiness on his part justified and a sign of his intelligence.

[nic]

(Here via MF)

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my sister, while watching Star Trek: The Next Generation.

"You know, all of these characters are supposed to be really smart. They got through Starfleet Academy and got assigned to the ENTERPRISE, which is the freakin' flagship of the fleet."

"Then why are Riker and Troi such morons?"

...I don't think it's just us (fans) who forget that someone in Starfleet/the Stargate program/whatever means they are way ahead of the curve.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

LOL! God, it's so true. And now I'm picturing Riker and Troi looking puzzled, trying to figure it out.

[valis2.livejournal.com]

I've said before one of the things I always think is cool about the Dick/Tim relationship in the Batbooks is that they were both created as self-insert characters for comic readers, but from different generations. Tim is more into computers, silently followed Batman and Robin around, collects information and souvenirs, and excels at the analysis part of the job. Dick, created in 1940, has a specialized background as a circus performer and other than that is more well-rounded: he's a bright student at school, and at detective studies, likes hanging out with friends and has a room full of trophies.

I can't stop thinking about this. Absolutely fascinating and so insightful and I even read this aloud to Husband. Totally intriguing!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yay! I'm glad that makes sense--it's one of the things I love about them. Especially because they get on so well and are so into being brothers. It gives me a warm feeling about generations getting along and appreciating each other.:-)