sistermagpie (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sistermagpie) wrote2010-01-07 08:55 pm
sistermagpie) wrote2010-01-07 08:55 pm
Entry tags:
A Nerd Fallacy
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!
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!
no subject
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.
no subject
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?
no subject
I remember one with some guy for a UK broadsheet film mag, where he was dissecting Keira Knightley and why she may be popular/unpopular, which, of course, was basically 'Women hate you' (I love how some men see this as almost a compliment) 'Don't worry about it, though, it's just because they're all fat and ugly, whereas you're thin and beautiful. Wanna fuck me yet?'
To her credit, she seemed to be saying 'That's a bit of a generalisation' (in both cases!), but some people can turn you off what they like with their defenses of it. (Like fervent HP fans just make me dislike it/him more, generally. Some people have the gift of making you like something even if you didn't before because of their enthusiasm, but it's rare.)
no subject
Perhaps they'd benefit from taking Elizabeth's advice to Darcy to practice his social skills.
YES to your entire last paragraph. When exactly did it become a crime to be friendly and popular in high school?
no subject
I was JUST thinking about that. He says something about not being great at conversation, and she says that she's not great at playing the piano, but she assumes that to be her own fault for not practising more.
I'm an introvert and not the best at small talk, but I know that I can get better over time.
no subject
no subject
band is sort of nerdy in a drop out way. On Freaks & Geeks the Jason Segel character is just a little geekier than the other two because he takes is seriously. In many US high schools the only thing it's okay to take seriously are sports.
But it doesn't mean they were total social rejects, merely that they were passionate about one thing and weren't prom king. Interestingly the creator of Glee was popular in high school.