![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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!
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
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).
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I do wonder about Reed. I wonder if it is that he's too socially capable or something.
From:
no subject
I doubt it's that -- Reed's canonically borderline-aspergers. Maybe the evil vibes given off by Jessica Alba's incredibly ugly blonde wig in the Fantastic Four movies scared people away. Or that he's married with two children, which doesn't tend to lend itself to slashy funtimes.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
If you have one character whose brilliance (or lockpicking skills or hacking or angst or whatever) is Their Big Thing at which they surpass all others -- then suddenly, all too often, the other people around them get made into incompetents, not even also-rans, who exist to be wowed by the one guy's skills. When often, in canon, Watson (or any number of others) was perfectly smart and perfectly competent, even if he wasn't in Holmes's league in Holmes's chosen specialization.
Of course, canons sometimes do this to their own characters too. (The above example of Dean from Supernatural is one I saw nearly all my friendslist up in arms about; they felt that all characterization said that he should know that perfectly well, and he got dumbed down to make other characters look better even though it made no sense. I don't watch Supernatural, so I don't have a strong opinion on it and don't remember the exact context of the scene, but that was definitely what I heard.)
From:
no subject