Tag Archives: Authenticity

Of Sluts and Stormtoopers: The “Controversy” of Hot Geek Chicks.

Jessica Mills, aka geekyjessica, wrote a short essay called When Geeks Become Bullies. Presumably she wrote this in response to the sometimes vitrolic rhetoric that pops up about various people, in particular the nebulous idea of  “hot chicks” who are geek poseurs. It’s an impassioned post, and there’s several points I agree with.

I’ve been a geek for a long time now, and “geek culture” has often been known for its divisiveness. Star Trek vs. Star Wars. Tabletop Gamers vs. LARPers. Everyone vs. Furries. Sure there’s always been crossover, but much as in academia, the infinitesimally small stakes of geekdom have resulted in battles of laughably epic proportion. To my chagrin, I’ve been a participant in the kind of exclusive, bullying behaviors that she highlights.I have, in my day, fiercely defended my little kingdom of fandom, like many before me I was geek red in tooth and pocket protector.

Of course the stakes aren’t so small anymore, at least in one respect, and unfortunately I think Ms. Mills, for all I laud her call for inclusiveness, overlooked an important aspect.

One of the reasons, and I suspect it might well be the main reason, that geek culture has increasingly bled into mainstream pop culture is a simple one: the almighty dollar. Companies have increasingly realized that when taken as an aggregate geeks have a lot of buying power, and that many geeks will cheerfully lay out large amounts of money in pursuit of their particular bliss.

On the one hand that’s a good thing. It has made more geeky bits and bobs available, which means more geeky stuff for us to indulge in. It has, as Ms. Mills rightly points out, also lead to people who otherwise might not have been exposed to geekdom, or might have shied away from professing their geekdom, an outlet for expressing themselves and finding their bliss.

However, it also brings a couple of problems. The first is the issue of pandering; of taking on the accouterments of geekdom, of presenting one’s self as a geek in order to secure the “geek vote,” or more accurately to tap into the revenue stream that is the geek dollar. If you’re female and a geek, “hot” or otherwise, that’s awesome. If on the other hand, you’re simply adopting the trappings of geekiness to try and open my wallet through both my dick and my fandom… I’m not so big on that. Sure, I like sex. I like sexy women. And while I’m perfectly happy to be jerked off, I don’t appreciate being jerked around. By anyone. When you do it with my fandom, over the fact that I am a geek, and that I grew up in a time and place where that was a source of both ostracism and comfort to me… yeah, I’m going to be a bit annoyed with you. I may not approve of some of the vitriolic rhetoric that gets thrown around, but I can understand the sentiment. I’m perfectly willing to give a corporation, or an individual for that matter, a hearty fuck you when they’re trying to manipulate me in this fashion.

The second element, and the one that touches more directly on what this particular blog is about, is the question of authentic selfhood. This isn’t separate from the issue I point out above. “Wear Brand X, or your friends won’t think you’re cool.” “If you don’t have the latest jPhone, jPad and jColonStimulator than you’re so last season.” Companies want us to buy their products. Fair enough, they’re out to make money after all, and if we’re going to allow any degree of an open market to exist we need to accept that. However, too often one of the ways these folks try to make money is by telling us that what we own, what we buy, is who we are. It’s not just in the form of status symbols either, though status symbol possessions are certainly part of the problem. Much as those cyberpunk sages warned us about, corporate branding has leaked into personal identity.

Geekdom also won’t be the first place where this has happened. Just think about tattoos and piercings for a moment. When I was growing up, tattoos and piercings were often regard as “edgy.” They were the domain of bikers and rockers. Now… now they’re not only largely part of accepted culture, they’re a corporate force, with TV shows, magazines, all the way through to the steaming pile of excrement that is the Ed Hardy franchise. It’s the mainstreaming of those places that were once out on the edge, with marketing designed to make these things seem like they’re edgy. Yet the truth is these things become increasingly homogenized so as to appeal to middle America, and in the process lose much of, if not all, their power to lead one toward an authentic expression of the self.

On a philosophical level, this isn’t opening the doors so that people can find their own bliss; it’s locking the doors and telling people that this is who they should be if they want to be valuable people. As a geek, as someone for whom these things have made up who I’ve been and who I’ve am, it does in certain respects feel like an aspect of myself has been lessened. People who’ve visited this blog before will realize that doesn’t sit well with me on either level.

Still, we should neither reflexively reject the mainstreaming of geek culture, nor should we lash out and create a culture of divisiveness. To do so does mean we lose those positive aspects. At the same time, uncritical acceptance is no healthier that reflexive rejection, and in many ways could be even unhealthier for geek “culture” such as it is.


Posted by on June 21, 2011 in Philosophy, Pop Culture


Tags: , , ,

Life’s a Stage and All That….

I apologize for my slowness in updating. The past couple weeks have been somewhat on the rough side.  I’ve been feeling ill, and have had a fair bit of work on my plate. In addition to the usual shenanigans of life I was drafted into some extra work this week, and was also cast in a local production of Arms and the Man (that last has thus far been the least of the extra work, as we’ve only had one rehearsal). Though I suspect there’s a more… emotional reason I’ve been retreating into hermitage. As I write this post it is currently not quite 10pm, February 16th 2011. A few hours from now it will officially be one year since I sat in a hospital for five hours watching my mother die.

My life hasn’t exactly been hugs and puppies. Sure, there are any number of people that have had it worse than me, but I’m not those people, and I can say that in a life that has had its share of shittastic moments, the events of February 17th 2010 pretty well tops the list. I’d lost one parent by that point – my old man had died several years previously, but we hadn’t really been on speaking terms since well before his death, and I suppose the same goes for my old man’s old man. I’d had an uncle die, but I hardly knew the man. I’ve known a few other people over the years who’ve died, but again I wasn’t particularly close to any of them. Maybe my lack of being more profoundly touched by these particular deaths is indicative of some deep flaw in my character. Right now I don’t really give a shit. Right now I only know that it was with my mother’s death that death stopped being a source of abstract existential dread and came by for a cup of tea.

But what is death? One could jump in with the easy answer about how it’s a cessation of the biological functions we call life, but what is it really? Think about it for a minute. One of the bits Ayn Rand stole from actual philosophers (yes, I’m using a profound moment of self-reflection to take another cheap shot at Ayn Rand… I never said I don’t have my petty moments) is the idea consciousness is always conscious of something. That’s really just a fancy way of saying that our consciousness, our “mind,” always is. When we’re awake we’re constantly receiving sensory input, thoughts are always bouncing around like pinballs; even when we sleep our tasty, tasty gray matter is chugging away with the firing of the neurons, and the managing of those handy autonomic functions. This is what it means to be. Whereas death, death is not being. Try and think about that for a moment. We are beings. We only understand what it means to be. Can we ever really understand what it means to not be?

For that matter can we ever really even understand the death of someone else? There are people who I was friends with at one point in time that I haven’t seen in years. I never expect to see the majority of them again (and with a few rare exceptions I don’t particularly mind this fact). How is this so different from my mother’s death? On the one hand I know that she is gone. She no longer exists as anything but some ashes in an overpriced box underneath the dirt. That’s not something you get to come back from. I know that… but do I understand it?

There was a German chap by the name of Heidegger who said, and I’m paraphrasing here, “Probably fucking not, but we really need to try anyway.” For Heidegger the act of wrestling with the inherent contradiction of not-being was a pretty crucial step in moving toward authenticity. If we don’t engage in this process we can’t really be whole as persons, for lack of a better term. If you’ve ever seen the film The Fountain and didn’t understand it, now you do. All that crazy zen spaceman flying around, and the Conquistador drinking magic tree spunk, it was all about confronting the spectre of mortality, both of the self and of others.

What does this have to do with comics? I suspect that anyone who has been reading the funny books for any length of time has long since realized that death is revolving door. I’ve long since lost count of the number of characters who’ve died and come back, though I think Jason Todd’s “resurrection because Superboy Prime punched the universe really fucking hard” is still at the top of the list of lamest returns ever. If we look at it from a business perspective it’s easy enough to justify, right? If Superman makes you a shitload of cash you’re not really going to want to get rid of him, not even if your silly ass event centered around his death is part of the speculator crash that left comics right fucked in the arse for a while*.

However, if you’re reading this blog, then you know I’m less concerned with anything so shallow. Yes, I said it. Money might be a necessary evil, sometimes the things it can get you might be nice, but it doesn’t really mean shit. What I’m concerned with is what the revolving-door of the afterlife means for comics as a medium. The simple answer is that it robs comics of much of their power to touch, or to tell meaningful stories. Which doesn’t mean death and a return from same can never be used as a powerful storytelling tool. One example I can think of comes from Bufft the Vampire Slayer. Sure, I thought that with the exception of “Once More, With Feeling,” which thanks to Anthony Stewart Head and Amber Benson was the best episode of the entire series, that Buffy’s sixth season was largely crap. I just didn’t like it. On the other hand it did feature Buffy’s return from the beyond as a major plot point that actually had, you know, ramifications and opportunities for growth. Comics, though… as a general rule not so much.

I’ve already cracked 1,000 words with this post, so I fear I’ll have to limit myself to what I consider a couple of the biggest offenders.

First up is Colossus. I generally liked the big, metal, Ruskie bastard, right? His little sister, another character I was found of, had died as a result of the Legacy Virus. For those of you not in the know on that one, the Legacy Virus was a nasty bug that had been floating around the Marvelverse for a while and generally causing problems in the X-Men related books. Beast finally comes up with a way to cure the fucker, but it requires someone to step up to the plate and sacrifice him, or herself in order to make the cure. Pete, he stepped up to the plate. For him, a world in which no one else had to watch their little sisters die from a disease that he could cure was more important than his own life. That’s pretty touching, you know? It was meaningful. Which was pretty much a guarantee it wouldn’t last.

See, it turns out that this annoying alien bastard, in cahoots with a government agency, had snatched Pete’s body, brought him back from the dead, and was using him as a guinea pig. Said alien’s planet apparently had some dipshit prophecy that mutants would be their doom. Because, you know, if mutants are going to be your doom the thing to do is kidnap a well-loved guy and then perform torturous experiments on him. That’s not going to bite you in the ass. That aside, when they brought Pete back it felt cheap. Sure the Legacy Virus was still cured, at least unless/until they decide to bring that back, but not only did they take away the meaningfulness of what Colossus had done, but they did it in a cheap way. The real kick in the teeth about this one? It was written by Joss Whedon, the guy who’d created Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Sure, it was likely an editorial mandate, but he couldn’t have found a way to execute said mandate in a way that’s not crappy and meaningless? Way to go, jackass.

On to example two. Hal Jordan. Hal was the Silver Age Green Lantern. Supermagitech ring with a weakness to yellow, silly mask etc. Hal was around for a while. During the whole Death/Return of Superman event Hal’s town of Coast City was wiped off the map. This kind of threw Hal for a loop. I don’t really blame the guy for that, yeah? I mean it was a pretty fucked up thing what happened. Hal eventually goes over the edge, smacks the shit out of the rest of the Green Lantern Corps, and eventually tries to wipe out and reboot the whole universe. His intentions might have been good, but I don’t generally approve of wiping out and rebooting universes unless I’m the one doing it. Of course comicbooks generally being all about the status quo, Hal eventually gets taken out by his old buddy Green Arrow. At some point he becomes the new Spectre, but that’s not important right now.

What’s important is that they eventually brought Hal back. Now they could have done it well. They could have done it in a way that Hal having to really confront what he had done, and deal with some pretty serious consequences. You might have guessed that since I’m using Hal as example number two they didn’t do that. No, what they did was decide that Parallax wasn’t crazy Hal, Parallax was a “fear entity” that has possessed Hal after the destruction of Coast City. So we get back a Hal who is not only a raging jackass, but other than a few people who are miffed at him over the whole trying to kill them thing, a Hal who went from having depth, from having interesting possibilities to being… shit, I already used raging jackass to describe him… a raging jackass who was largely robbed of the very traits that could have given him some real depth.

I wish I could say that I thought this trend would change. Sadly, with the focus on the status quo, and on the making of money, I really don’t see that happening. So while I could say more about this I’ve already cracked 1700 words at this point, it’s getting late, and I’ve got beer to drink… I should also at least attempt to get some work done, and there’s the whole trying to sleep while gripped with existential dread that needs to be attempted.

* I almost forgot to sneak in this last bit. For all I bag on Superman’s death, and it does deserve to be bagged on, I also reread the whole shebang shortly after my mother’s death. The Funeral for a Friend portion of the storyline, at least, was rather good in its way. As someone who was going through that experience it did resonate with a lot of what I was going through. So I’ll at least give it some props on that.

Leave a comment

Posted by on February 16, 2011 in Comics, Philosophy


Tags: , , , ,