![[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
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.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Wow, I have never thought that about Dick and the feminine qualities but that really makes sense. I mean, there's already so many ways where Dick surprisingly winds up attracting a pattern of attitudes that usually get imposed on women, but you are really right there about things like emotional intelligence, cooperation etc. And Tim, while obviously not being hyper-masculine in an exaggerated way, really does probably fall into the more comfortable area of lone, obsessive hero. Which doesn't sit so well on Dick because when he's isolated you notice--it's like icon_uk always points out as being weird about Devin Grayson's run on Nightwing. He doesn't operate naturally like that, and that's often seen as a flaw instead of just being different.
From:
no subject
Yeah, it's odd how that aspect of Grayson's run on Nightwing seems to push Dick into a the loner hero bit, but I'd say she also gives him a bit of the "pretty boy/jock" treatment, in that she writes him as someone for whom everything stems from the body/movement/physicality, to the point where he's actually sometimes kind of socially oblivious. At leas some of the time. In the Inheritance prose DC novel she wrote, that's definitely how Dick comes off.
From:
no subject