Geeks and glamour

[sartorias]

Last night I crossed town (that means a very considerable freeway drive in SoCal) for a nifty visit with old friends, during which I drank a lot of strong tea in order to stay alert for the return drive. The tea got me home just fine, but though I was physically pooped, my mind was ooo-eee, watch that hamster wheel whirl

Comments

[swan_tower]

Not a geekery thing, but (thanks to the time at which I chose to watch The Devil Wears Prada), Miranda Priestley reminded me of nothing so much as the absolute monarchs of Europe. The unquestioning assumption that she had a right to demand anything and everything, and it was someone else's job to make it happen no matter how outrageous . . . and what bothered me was I felt like the movie equivocated about whether fashion is important enough to partially justify that behavior. As far as I'm concerned, no, it isn't. Period.

[sartorias]

I liked the fact that all the way through the story, that right was the unquestioning assumption of those who chose the fashion world. Andy came into that world indifferent, got sucked in and made the choices to abide by those rules . . . and then made the choice she made, to avoid spoilers.

[swan_tower]

I think I wanted more critique of that right in general, rather than the question the film seemed interested in, which is whether or not the fashion world matters enough to the individual to make it worth putting up with. I'm just fundamentally unconvinced that people like Miranda Priestley contribute enough to the world to merit even a quarter of the deference and privilege she receives.

I mean, heck. Charles I would have been appalled at the way she treated her servants.

[sartorias]

Well, I see two issues here. One, the choices one makes to be utterly and totally devoted to a passion, especially when one is successful. Aside from the treatment of underlings, it was clear that Miranda P. worked hours as long as did her minions, her every waking moment was on the job, even if cushioned by the material trappings of success. (And of course the wealth and admiration.) When she walks toward the smiles and applause and cameras, it's clear that this is her world, her choice, her life . . . though she was hurt by the divorce, the hurt wasn't deep enough to persuade her to make the time to fix it.

Now, her treatment of underlings is another issue. Could she be as successful and driven and treat others with more grace? Sure. But the point is all about her being driven. And what that means.

[a_d_medievalist]

I think you turn the corner at Revenge of the Nerds and Real Genius (Still possibly Val Kilmer's best film ...). Or perhaps it's because they happened at about the time that more people were able to access personal computers? That is, that in the late 80s and early 90s, access to computing and the internet went from something for geeky academics and have become ever more commonplace since. At the same time, we were in a period where captains of industry were again being seen as incredibly powerful and influential, even exemplary -- the personal computer revolution put Jobs and Gates up at the top. They are absolutely geeks, but they are geeks with power and money and access to world leaders. It's hard to say that isn't kinda cool!

[sartorias]

Yep--I'd put the turn around Revenge of the Nerds as well. (And it seems interesting that 'nerd' seems to have sunk, or been subsumed by, geek, which is no longer totally pejorative, but even has its own coolth.)

[ckd]

Yeah, I could see that; 1984 (RotN)-1985 (RG), with the growth of the personal computer (TIME's "Machine of the Year" for 1982[1]) and the shift in the economy that followed.

Lucky me, I was the right age at the right time. I started learning BASIC programming in 1979, got a computer in 1982, and then a (300 bps!) modem in 1983. I later discovered this "UNIX" and "Internet" stuff, which was mostly a bunch of fun toys when I was in college in the late 1980s. Then it turned out that those fun toys were about to turn into things people would pay me to work with.

[1] I was pretty sure this year was right, but I still checked with the mighty Google.

[sartorias]

Our protag goes into combat, armed only with the mighty Google . . .

[green_knight]

You've linked to a flocked post :-(

And I don't think social awkwardness (the geekery type) is related to the 'can't be bothered to spend time with people who can't help me get on in life' snobbery the Priestley character exhibits.

Choosing to spend time alone/in a narrow circle vs. attempting to go into the wider world... hm. Not sure how to find the right balance, or how individual that is. And I think that the geek has a forerunner in the confirmed bachelor or the Oxford (and otherwise) Don, the Sherlock Holmes's of this world - only 'eccentric' has gone out of fashion, so the same kind of people acquired new hobbies, but do not behave essentially differently.

[sartorias]

Thanks for the correction--I seldom notice locks unless the person points it out in the post, sigh. Fixed.

[tritoneclarinet]

hmm.... I can unf-lock if you'd like. :-p (I should change my settings anyway.)

[tritoneclarinet]

Done. :)

[sartorias]

Yes, that's it exactly.

[swan_tower]

Oddly, the far crueler action (to the other office-minion) was the one I was much readier to accept. It was politics, and Miranda made a decision to maintain her own power. It was the petty crap earlier in the movie that I felt got swept under the rug as just, "well, she's a really important woman."

[asakiyume]

Hmm, your example of the character from that film is interesting because if she's a geek, she's a geek with power, whereas I think a lot of geeks a lot of the time see themselves as without power, or with only sly, sideways power. (Trickster power. Loki instead of Thor.) And yet, geeks surely can get powerful--like Bill Gates, say.

I think the social-awkwardness aspect is important to the definition. It's not just having the consuming interest, it's also not being skilled at social give and take. Happily, you can progress out of that... some people with geek-level intensity of interest and expertise in an area can also be quite personable. I'm thinking Stephen Hawking must be one example, though I've never met him. But the fact that he's done things like make guest appearances on Star Trek or The Simpsons makes me think he's got a sense of fun about himself and his ideas that leads me to believe he'd be quite personable.

[sartorias]

Hmmm..Steven H's ability to interact is circumscribed severely by physical limitations. I wonder if actually he developed charm as a defence, like Miles Vorkosigan?

It's true about geeks seeing themselves as powerless in the social scene. In a weird way, the Miranda character also was socially powerless in that no one liked her or wanted to be with her except in the way of business . . . five failed marriages, and her kids raised by servants. (Even when she's home alone, she's not with those kids.)

[scribblerworks]

And Miranda is a bit non-plussed when Andy treats her like a human being. She knows the nerve it took for Andy to try and let her know about the politics in Paris - even though she was ahead of Andy - and she's not entirely dismissive of it.

But she doesn't really know what to do with Andy's acts of friendship. There are no strings attached to them, and Miranda expects strings.

[sartorias]

Well, either that or by not chosing to stay in the game, Andy lost interest as a player--but she got Miranda's respect while she was in the game. She really meant the "biggest disappointment" when Andy left.

I got this faint sense that Miranda's whole life was going to be measured by disappointments, in the end.