You are viewing ludickid

JUMP BACK | BE FORWARD

Towards clarity

flavored with age
I have, in the endless reels of free time that constitute my life, created a taxonomy which more clearly defines three words which are often used interchangably and, to my mind, incorrectly: DORKS, NERDS and GEEKS. It is through common understanding and plain speaking that our civilization advances; we may never be at peace until this issue is clarified.

DORKS are the most 'mainstreamed' of this troika of dweebiness. Your dork is almost a normal human being; the quality of dorky is not strained. A dork is simply someone with an enthusiasm for something that, while not fully embraced by the popular culture, is also not entirely a "fringe" activity. In addition, your dork tends to enthusiastic about rather than obsessed by her pleasures; she is a fan rather than a fanatic. Dorks are, in short, people who are just slightly too fond of marginally acceptable activities. A dork is someone who likes Broadway musicals, legitimate theatre, Hummel or Precious Moments figurines, collectible thimbles, marching bands, or birdwatching. Your mother can be a dork, but not a nerd or a geek. Dorkiness is harmless, even cute; there is in dorkitude none of the malignance of the geek or the arrogance of the nerd. Dorks are our children, our parents, our cousins who collect coins. God smiles on the dork. (The teenage equivalent of the dork is the "fag", as in "band fag" or "drama fag"). If you have ever worn a 'Cats' sweatshirt, you are most likely a dork.

NERDS are perhaps the most misunderstood of the marginalia-enthusiast triumvirate. Simply put, the nerd is someone whose unpopular passion can be put to a practical -- indeed, even profitable -- use. If you make money, especially a lot of money, off of the activity that got you wedgies in high school, you are probably a nerd. The most common sort of nerd is the computer nerd, but there are nerds in all the sciences: physics nerds, chemistry nerds, engineering nerds, math nerds, even radio & telecommunications nerds. Indeed, nerdistry is almost a necessary component to a career in the science or technology fields. (The teenage nerd is a "wad", be he a gaywad, a dickwad or a dorkwad.) Since nerds have become more necessary to the smooth functioning of society in light of the increased role computers play in our lives, they have lost some of their outsider cachet; they have attempted to counter this trend by co-opting the term "geek". Make no mistake: an expert with computers is a nerd, not a geek. They may dress themselves up in the pejorative cool of geekdom, but computer nerds they were and computer nerds they remain. They will soon be the true masters of our society; they should revel in their nerdiness, not deny it. Nerds of the world, stand tall. Or as tall as you can, with your bad posture.

GEEKS are the bottom-feeders of the unholy trio of sit-at-the-back-of-the-cafeteria types. A geek may glory in his role (God knows I do), but secretly, he knows he is just playing semantic bingo. He knows that, like his chicken-decapitating namesake, he is the dregs of the dregs, the lowest of the low. The geek is typefied by his obsessive, fruitless dedication to and knowledge of phenomena of only marginal interest to even other geeks, and of no interest to normal human beings. Unlike the dork, the geek's passions lie not on the borders of popular culture, but in faraway lands of total lameness; unlike the nerd, his interests have absolutely no profit potential or practical value. (It is not for nothing that the teenage geek is known as the "loser".) The most common sorts of geek are comic book, science fiction, fantasy, role-playing and movie geeks; but there are as many sorts of geek as there are colors of the junk-culture rainbow. There are music geeks (and, even more stupefying, sub-genre geeks); there are romance novel geeks; there are sports geeks and internet geeks and real-vampire geeks. There is no theoretical limit to the sort of thing one can be geeky about, since there are a limitless number of inconsequential, pointless activities which normal people rightly have no interest in. I myself am geeky about things as commonplace as baseball and comic books, and things as obscure as postmodernism and underground rap music. Yet for all their flaws, the saddest thing about a geek is if he doesn't recognize who he is. A geek is a geek, but a self-denying geek is a geek's geek. Let your geek flags fly, my brothers, my sisters. Represent.

Tags:

Comments

( 14 SHOTS LICKED — LICK A SHOT )
sabinablue
Mar. 13th, 2003 08:10 am (UTC)
Another view of a dork.

- Sabina, who digs geeks
mckennl
Mar. 13th, 2003 08:17 am (UTC)
I believe I used "dork" correctly in my recent post about my favorite soap opera being nominated for a daytime Emmy. Would you concur?
ludickid
Mar. 13th, 2003 08:25 am (UTC)
I certainly would. Well done, thou good and faithful servant.
tritium
Mar. 13th, 2003 08:24 am (UTC)
I'm still a bit iffy on the whole nerd/geek thing. The ability to make money on your obsession seems a little arbitrary to me. Consider the trainspotter: perhaps the ultimate geek. Now consider a trainspotter who has gotten work as the custodian of a transportation museum. Is he suddenly no longer a geek, instead, a nerd? This makes no sense to me.
ludickid
Mar. 13th, 2003 08:32 am (UTC)
No, he is still a geek. He has lucked into a job that allows him to make money off his obsession. The same applies to someone who makes money as the proprietor of a comic book shop, or a booker of sci-fi conventions, or the author of a series of best-selling fantasy novels.

The key distinction here is the utility of the endeavor. Geeks are capable of making money with their passion (although it's not common), but their target audience is OTHER GEEKS. It's an entirely self-directed economic structure. The nerd, on the other hand, makes money (and more of it, too) because his passion coincides with an important societal need.

EVERYONE needs the things that computer science, physics, or engineering nerds can provide. The only people who need what geeks can provide are other geeks. Does that make the distinction clearer?

Put another way, if all the geeks disappeared overnight, no one would notice, because they have no social utility outside the geek community. If the nerds disappeared overnight, society would collapse, because they fulfill practical needs for all of society. We can get along without the people who run transportation museums, because only the sort of people who are likely to go to transportation museums need them. We can't get by without engineers or mathematicians or computer scientists.

tritium
Mar. 13th, 2003 10:12 am (UTC)
>EVERYONE needs the things that computer science, physics, or engineering nerds can provide.

See, this is the problematic part. A hell of a lot of math and science are masturbatory (in a good way, certainly). We do not need the transfinite numbers; heck, we don't need any number greater than 264. We don't need Gödel's incompleteness theorem. I mean, all those things are fucking cool and simply amazing, but we don't need them. The only people who would be deprived without these things would be other mathematicians. We probably don't need computability theorists. Complexity theorists, sure, but computability?

A hell of a lot of research, especially in math and science, is pretty much a scam. We've somehow convinced the outside world that this crap is all useful, but really, we're just fulfilling our geeky desires.
lester22
Mar. 13th, 2003 08:53 am (UTC)
Hmm. You draw some interesting distinctions. But you fail to allow for the fact that many of the members of the "fringe" can easily belong to two or sometimes all three groups in this troika. I, for instance, am definitely a grammar/spelling geek, but I am merely a baseball dork and often a music nerd. I would also submit that in addition to being a music nerd, I am usually a music nazi, which is to say that I not only get paid to play music in a variety of settings, I have nothing but contempt and ire for those forms of music that enable really awful musicians to make a living. Also, there are definite subsets of each that wander into other categories. For example, I am a film dork (similar to a film buff but celebratory of far too many esoteric movies to be labeled a "buff"), but I am most definitely a film geek about movies like Watership Down (see my icon) and The Big Lebowski.

Now I've gone and confused myself. I feel a bit like Joanne Woodward in The Three Faces of Eve. (Ack. What does that last sentence make me, geek or dork? Help.)
ludickid
Mar. 13th, 2003 09:00 am (UTC)
While crossover between the groups is entirely commonplace (for example, many nerds are also geeks), you make several key errors.

First of all, it is not possible to be a music nerd. Enthusiasts of music -- especially obscure music, and especially obscure music which is distinguished by its promulgator as inherently superior to 'mainstream' music -- are geeks. The fact that you make money off it does not make it any less geeky (see my above comment).

Your point about there being both film dorks and film geeks is well taken, however, and the distinguishing line would be useful to delineate.

Your last sentence, by the way, is dorky. It would have been geeky if you'd said you felt like John Bigboote in "Buckaroo Banzai".
lester22
Mar. 13th, 2003 09:41 am (UTC)
Re:
God, this is so strange and new and difficult all at once. Am I having some sort of geek/nerd/dork pubescence? Is there a support group I can talk to? Maybe I should just sit down with the collected works of John Waters, Douglas Adams, and Napalm Death and think about things over a bag of Funyuns.
beanparty
Mar. 13th, 2003 10:52 am (UTC)
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE DWEEBS !@!???
doraphilia
Mar. 13th, 2003 11:48 am (UTC)
I'm really glad you clarified this. I have often had trouble explaining my role to people because people think these three identifications are synonymous. Because I don't play dungeons and dragons or magic cards or whatever, because I have lots of friends and a sense of style and I date and I go to parties, bars and clubs, people don't really understand where I'm coming from.

My brother, tritium is a NERD (god bless him). He has an incredibly marketable skill in nerdly things I could never do. My brother and I are very different-- and I am very much a DORK. I get overly enthusiastic about things and it causes my friends to roll their eyes. I have no desire to act cool or indifferent towards anything. I get obsessive about a genre of music and talk about it in a very dorky way. I get obsessive about a game or activity and completely embarrass myself and babble about it. Next week I'm leading a group of younger students on a workshop, and I made them play dorky name games at our meetings.

So for you to specify the difference between these three terms was very useful for me, and I thank you for it.
ludickid
Mar. 13th, 2003 12:11 pm (UTC)
Re:
Name games are definitely dorky. You have a sort of dorky air about you, which I approve of. It's a good time to be dorky.

The sad think about your brother is that he's a nerd and doesn't understand that he should be proud of it. He wants to be a geek, because he thinks that's cooler when in fact it's much, much worse. Stand up for your nerdiness, David!
(Anonymous)
Dec. 12th, 2003 12:14 pm (UTC)
I move that there be alternative spellings such as "Geak," "Dorck,"
and "Knerd," for important emerging sub-genres.
(Anonymous)
Dec. 12th, 2003 12:14 pm (UTC)
and, yes, "Dweeb" has been neglected.
( 14 SHOTS LICKED — LICK A SHOT )

Profile

flavored with age
ludickid
Gun-totin', Chronic-smokin' Hearse Initiator
Ludic Log

PROPRIETOR

Leonard Pierce is a freelance writer wandering around Texas with no sleep or sense of direction. If you give him money he will write something for you. If you are nice to him he may come to your house and get drunk.

Latest Month

March 2013
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow