Feelings about the words “geek” and “nerd”
I’ve never cared for these terms, and I know many folks in fandom have long-since felt these words were reclaimed. Personally, I’ve never been fond of lexical reclamation… too much effort in my opinion needs expending, and in the case of “nerd” and another n-word, the words didn’t belong to the target group in the first place. The words were always weapons. So they can’t actually be reclaimed, only claimed. So why bother?
“Geeks,” the circus people who bit the heads off chickens, were targets of scorn. They were set up to be freaks. So some jerks targetted fans—-people who use their minds, who engage in ideas, who imagine futures, who are often artistic and creative, who may be effective organisers as with producing conventions—-these people get labelled derisively.
And by whom? By people who spend their entire income on the vanity of clothes and makeup? By the type of people who paint themselves red and orange and sit in cold stadia with their shirts off? Who are they to condemn us? Far as I’m concerned, they’re the real geeks.
Okay, got that rant done. I expect there’ll be disagreement on this one, and I welcome it. Let’s hear your thoughts.
September 10, 2008 at 4:15 pm
“Queer” is an interesting one since the reclaiming of that is now very widespread. I used to have an issue with this, having grown up during the time when it was a serious piece of abuse. And yet I know plenty of people older than myself who prefer queer to gay as a self-definition. Younger people too, I think Hal Duncan said as much himself a while back.
One obvious point is that queer is actually easier to reclaim since it at least has a positive aspect:
1. At variance with what is usual or normal; differing in
some odd way from what is ordinary; odd; singular;
strange; whimsical; as, a queer story or act. “ A queer
look.” –W. Irving.
Queer embraces more variance, gay often sounds merely happy. (It should be noted here that taxonomy debates in the queer/gay world are never-ending.)
Another point: I’m fairly sure that kids didn’t start using “gay” to mean something bad or undesirable until it became a fairly widespread, “official” term for same-sex attraction. That’s a good example of the impossibility of policing the use of words in the wider world; people will take them and use them regardless.
September 10, 2008 at 4:20 pm
And after all that, I forget to mention that Maurice Sendak came out yesterday:
http://tinyurl.com/69qx4k
September 10, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Good ol’ Sendak. Always loved that guy’s artwork.
September 10, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Minister: the observation is interesting, particularly considering how the appropriation of such terms has spawned hierarchical divides in fandom. The same mentality of ostracizing certain groups or individuals based on their interests, fashion, etc. is now at work inside the very communities that formed due to mainstream rejection. For those more interested than I, the debate rages elsewhere on numerous websites as to the differences between nerds and geeks, and whose interests have become “cool” versus whose are still “lame.” MMORPGers laughing at LARPers laughing at cosplayers laughing at furries, that sort of thing. While there have, perhaps, been less (numerically) visceral and identifiable hate crimes committed against gamers, trekkers, et. all, I don’t doubt that many a teen suicide has resulted from bullying, and therefore the terminology and its problematic past is more relevant than the current, benign incarnations of these particular terms imply…
John: Given the usage of terminology such as “queer theory” and “queer cinema” becoming canonized language in Academia the delightful origin of the word will hopefully win through. That said, I’d hesitate to use it whimsically for a few decades, until the specter of its former common usage fades. I certainly wouldn’t want to be the one to recommend a “queer” film to a homosexual acquaintance or co-worker who wasn’t cool enough to realize the word had been reclaimed and then awkwardly explain that I wasn’t being an asshole, they were just unhip. Oh, and the Sendak article made my day, what a wonderful old grouch!
September 10, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Jesse wrote, “The same mentality of ostracizing certain groups or individuals based on their interests, fashion, etc. is now at work inside the very communities that formed due to mainstream rejection.”
Of course, Jesse, you’re right to point out that I’m trying to have it both ways. Still, it seems unlikely that my rejection of the rejectors is likely to knock them out of their privileged social position. From a consequentialist standpoint, I doubt my voicing contempt for the Paris + Sporto set is likely to cause them any measurable damage… indeed, they’re not likely even to notice it.
Still, any time I or anyone else voices anger instead of understanding, bitterness instead of compassion, rants instead of solutions, our world gets a little closer to its final entropic heat death. So I thank you kindly for reminding me, and I’ll try to use the rest of the week to focus on positives.
September 10, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Jesse: Among my friends, queer seems to be a term preferred by those who have a more political stance with regard to gay issues. This isn’t so surprising since the reclamation of the word was an overtly political act in the 1980s. However, that doesn’t wipe away the history, as you note. It would still feel odd for me to say “Yeah, I’m queer,” in a matter-of-fact manner rather spitting it out and following it with “whatcha gonna do about it?”
I sometimes think we should keep everyone on their toes by going back to some of the forgotten 19th century designations such as “molly” or Karl Heinrich Ulrichs’s Uranian definitions; get some Steampunk retro-fitting into the queer world.
September 10, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Very recently someone introduced me to the phrase, “Are you a friend of Dorothy’s?” I thought that was really oblique, until I remembered that the phrase “he’s gay” was also originally an oblique code. Amazing how something can pass from hieroglyphic to street sign in a short span.
September 10, 2008 at 10:28 pm
There’s a whole world of largely forgotten slang called Polari which grew out of theatre and circus slang (or cant, as it’s more properly known) and which served exactly that oblique purpose whereby gay people could discuss matters which were illegal (for men) in Britain until 1967.
http://www.chris-d.net/polari/
Some of the derivations on that list are rather dubious so take it with a pinch of salt. And yeah, gay goes back to the cant of the Victorian era. Full-on Polari when written down isn’t very far removed from the Nadsat of A Clockwork Orange which is kind of fitting in a way; Anthony Burgess notes that he took the book’s title from a Cockney phrase, “as queer as a clockwork orange.”
September 11, 2008 at 6:24 am
Nice f&sf romanian story in english: http://www.nautilus.nemira.ro/category/english-page/
September 11, 2008 at 10:29 am
Dweeb.
September 11, 2008 at 2:55 pm
In my short story, The House and the Baboon, one of the characters is based on my wife’s cousin, who likes to refer to himself as a “red-neck queer.” Which he is. He and I call each other things that we would probably never say in front of other people unless they knew us well, because they might not understand.
September 12, 2008 at 9:50 am
Hi guys , my input may seem somewhat weak after the more serious previous responses but I thought that I should chime in as best I can.
I first set up my NerdNotGeek website because I believe myself to be a Nerd and not a geek.
Some it seems liked to be called one and others prefer the other, I would however state that almost all nerds or geeks know that they are within the bracket somewhere and are not in any way suprised to be referred to in such a way. Most would probably just be happy to be noticed at all and would never find it offensive. (unless they were extremely anti-Nerd {the dark side})
Personally I know some people who are definate Nerds and some who are Geeks, ( I also know some guys who are gay and some who are Queer so that works too) but I think there is a self defined division and it is quite a fine line, it is prolly only nerds that know who is who.
Jim
October 4, 2008 at 7:17 am
Very interesting issues raised here. I can’t really comment on the taking-back of the word “queer” but I will say that I found claiming my identity as a geek (at the time, mostly in LotR, knitting, historical costuming, and linguistics-oriented interests) in my freshman year of high school to be very empowering. During that first year of high school I was encouraged by my brilliant geometry teacher, a well-educated (Ph.D. in psychology) woman who was herself into fantasy lit and the Middle Ages. Using the word “geek” allowed me to ground my interests in the esoteric/unusual by claiming an alternative identity, if you will.
Now, I have definitely encountered confusion from people when I rather happily claim geek status, when these people assume that it’s always a derogatory term. And these days, now geek chic is a fashion trend (seriously? this is supposed to be clever?) there is less of a social stigma to adhere to geek as a descriptor.
In fact, I think one of the reasons that I have always been drawn to the word geek to describe myself is because it lacks highly definitive parameters. I like to wear black skirts embellished with safety pins sometimes, but I wouldn’t call myself a goth. I have worn a faux mullet and listened to some ferocious music in my day, but I wouldn’t call myself a punk. I’ve read some great essays, sewn a canvas corset, and shopped for a pocket watch, but I wouldn’t quite call myself 100% steampunk. The last one in that list is the closest to really encapsulating what I’m into, but even then it’s not a complete description.
Just a few thoughts. Maybe 5 centimes instead of 2 cents, but there you have it.
October 4, 2008 at 10:29 am
Oh gosh, just realized I wrote that I wore a faux mullet — that should say a faux mohawk. Galloping gargoyles, I would never sport a mullet! Oy vey.