Notes, Notings, and Common Refrains

Online, here: "On Fairy Stories" by J. R. R. Tolkien

It took me several days; I consider this quite an accomplishment. I was expecting it to be about the length of a magazine article. When I copy-pasted the whole thing into Open Office and did a word count, it came out at over 22K words.

There is much in the essay I agree with (at that length, on that subject it would be improbable if there were not). But, if I were to sit across a table from him, over mugs of tea and a plate of bread and cheese, and this were a discussion, there would be many points where I'd be interjecting: "Yes. But."

However, here are seven of my favorite passages (Seven is a fitting number for the subject), where I find myself nodding in agreement:

(Quote 1 [from the section titled "Origins"]:)
( The things that are there must often have been retained (or inserted) because the oral narrators, instinctively or consciously, felt their literary “significance.” )

(Quote 2 [from the section "Children"]:)
( Children as a class —- except in a common lack of experience they are not one )

(Quote 3 [From "Fantasy"]:)
( If men really could not distinguish between frogs and men, fairy-stories about frog-kings would not have arisen )

(Quote 4 [From "Recovery, Escape, Consolation"]:)
( We should look at green again, and be startled anew (but not blinded) by blue and yellow and red. )

(Quote 5 [ibid]:)
( The gems all turn into flowers or flames, and you will be warned that all you had (or knew) was dangerous and potent, not really effectively chained, free and wild; no more yours than they were you. )

(Quote 6 [ibid]):
( Why should a man be scorned if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home? Or if, when he cannot do so, he thinks and talks about other topics than jailers and prison-walls? )

(Quote 7 [From "footnote D"]
( I did not want to be quibbled into Science and cheated out of Faerie )

This past July, I just about mainlined on YouTube videos about the Higgs Boson. And I discovered something (for me, anyway): didn't matter if I understood what they were saying -- listening to physicists talk about their particular field of study makes me feel as happy and calm as listening to a lullaby ...

'Cause the message is pretty much the same as a lullaby: The universe is a beautiful place, it's governed by laws that keep whole thing in one piece; the more we learn about it, the more beautiful it appears, and there will always be more to learn. And even if I don't understand the meaning of the words they use, their joy in their work comes through in their voices.

I really like the YouTube Channels by Brady Haran: Numberphile (Maths) SixtySymbols (physics) and Periodic Table of Videos (Chemistry). He basically walks around the University of Nottingham with a video camera, and asks professors to talk about their subjects. So you get the profs when they're relaxed and just playing around and being their geeky selves.

So far, this man (Professor Ed Copeland) is one of my go-to people for when I need cheering up. Just look at how easily he smiles, and how there are default crinkles in the corner of his eyes (how you know the smiles are genuine -- can fake everything about a smile, except that). It's almost more of an effort for him to keep a straight face. Here he is talking about wormholes:



He obviously loves the universe, and most of the people in it.

EDIT: Argh! premature post -- all because I accidentally hit the [Enter] key, instead of [Tab]

I've always loved monsters, for nearly as long as I can remember.

Actually, I should qualify that: I'm not fond, at all, of the "Hollywood monsters," such as zombies, or "The Thing from the Black Lagoon" or "The Blob" -- which are, imnsho, blatant representations of abject fear-without-thought, and show up in stories to justify unjustifiable bigotry. But I've always loved the heraldic monsters:

Unicorns (Note Well: they are not just sparkly ponies with a horn. And they do not poop rainbows), Dragons, &hearts Gryphons &hearts, Greenmen, and of course, the monster of my Astrological Sun-sign: Sea-goats

For most of that time, I just thought they were nifty because they were -- "fancy" (?), and they represent the "magical impossible," and are manifestations of the imagination, and creativity... All good stuff. But I never gave them much more thought beyond: "Nifty, Neat-O! Keen!"

Then, a few years ago, for naarmamo, I was overcome with a desire to draw new monsters of my own invention, several days in a row... like some sort of biological urge, or something.

And the geeky part of my brain thought: "WTF is up?! What is a monster, anyway? What, after all, is the basic definition?" And that's when I found the etymology, of "monster" being a "creature, human or livestock, with birth defects, and seen as a bad omen, and sign that the gods were angry."

And from that point on, monsters became a political statement for me, representing Disability Pride, Culture, and History, and the fight against Ableism/Disablism -- on top of being a manifestation of creativity and imagination. ... And here, I could mount an argument that creativity and the use of the imagination is an essential part of Disability Culture, because when Society makes a concerted effort to deny you access (because it views you as a monster) you have to be creative, to make a way of living for yourself where none is given to you.

(but really, that's for another post).

Then, the other day, when I posted the newest image of my newest monster,* pebblerocker commented that she loved the "joins" -- where feather meets fur and fur meets scales. And there was the "ding-ding-ding!" of realization, and third leg in the three-legged stool of my monster-love popped into place.

Back in my first years of my college education, I took a literary survey course called "Comedy, Wit, and Humor" (it was awesome; it was once a week, three hours long, and we got to watch Richard Pryor videos and tell dirty jokes in class). And the one thing from that class which has stuck with me over the last 30 years is this:

The punchlines of jokes work because the human mind can only follow one line of logic at a time. The main "body" of the joke tells a story along a certain line of logic, and in standard narrative fashion, the emotional tension builds to a climax. Then, the "punch" line comes in, from a completely different logical direction and knocks that emotional tension "ass-over-teakettle," revealing all our fears and worries to be nonsensical. And in that release of tension, we laugh. (And that may be why so many people say a compatible sense of humor is the most important trait in life partners -- your sense of humor reveals how you are likely to respond to life's ambiguities. Personally, I will never trust anyone whose humor tends toward causing pain or belittling another's intelligence).

( The joke that was given as a model of this formula (as I remember it), was this: )

Anyway, pebblerocker's comment flicked on the light bulb that monsters do this, too. The point where the goat's front half grows from the fish's back half, or the Green Man's beard grows as foliage instead of hair, is like the punchline of a joke: the moment when the logic of the world-as-we-know-it gets turned on its head.

This can be the moment of terror (especially if you are the Archbishop of Seville, and all the comfort and power in your life is built on the world-as-we-know-it), but it can also be the moment of laughter (which Jim Henson, in his genius, understood instinctively, if not intellectually).

And that's why I Heart Monsters: In one package, they represent:

1) The sublime reaches of Human Creativity
2) Righteous Anger against human cruelty
3) The ultimate life-saving power of the Absurd

*( it's here, behind the cut )

Even though "Geek & Sundry" is a professional, for-profit YouTube Channel, I have to share these recent videos of theirs.

Remember, how, yesterday evening, I was remarking how I'd turned into a gloomy, Serious Business so-and-so?

Well, G&S came to my rescue. Last night, they posted a bonus video of Felicia Day and Robin Thorston making candy versions of "sushi" ... and that prompted me to get into a brief exchange with another user in the comments about our favorite flavor combinations, especially around candy and ice cream...

Then, this afternoon, they posted this music video by Paul and Storm. I'm not even a Game of Thrones fan, and I still had to watch it four times in a row... and kept finding new things to laugh at.

And I know several people in my circles are fans of the series, so:

So yeah... the other day, I wrote this as a quickie post:

[Quote]
A proposal for a definition of "Geek," which can exist independent of any particular cultural trend (e.g. video-games, comics, or spec. fic):

Noun:

Someone to whom the sentence: "You're over-thinking this," is inherently nonsensical.
[Unquote]

This is the ultimate antithesis of a "quickie post" It has All the Words... But a bunch are under cuts, and I'll understand if you don't actually read them all (though it would be nifty if you read some). Basically, this is where a non-geek would say I'm over-thinking this...

That thought came to me in the middle of watching the newest music video from the YouTube Channel called "Geek and Sundry," which is provided under the cuts below for those who are curious. Go Watch / Read / Whatever. I'll wait 'till you get back.

( I'm the one that's cool -- video behind the cut for NSFW or kids visuals )

( I'm the one that's cool -- Song lyrics for those who can't watch vid, behind the cut for length )

The thing is, I've always considered myself a "geek,"* but I had to Google about two-thirds the cultural references in those lyrics before I understood them. And I really think "geek" is really more about: 1) A general attitude toward the world around you and 2) your favorite ways of solving problems than it ever was about which particular cultural tastes you have.

I mean, take this soliloquy from Hamlet, for example: if these aren't the words of a Geek-type wishing he could be more of a Jock-type, than I don't what is (whether these are words strictly specific to character and situation, or [as I suspect] the author getting a wee bit autobiographical)

( Video of he Soliloquy from the end Act 2, Scene 2 in *Hamlet* as acted by David Tennant )

**

( Text of the Soliloquy )

( Here's where I stop quoting and start babbling my own words about everything above -- Starting with *Hamlet* and finishing with why I think 'Geekdom' is MORE than just science, math, computers, and science fiction, but even so, I understand why so many people think Geek=Science ... What do you mean, I'm 'over-thinking this?' )

*or rather, as someone of that personality type -- the year I graduated left high school, (I stayed an extra year after I was qualified to graduate so I could be in the new Advanced Placement History and English classes): 1982, the first definition of "Geek" in the dictionary was still "Someone who bites the heads off chickens," and I was never that.

**There's also a video that compares the performances of both Simm and Tennant, back-to-back, but of the two, David's version comes across to me as more frantically barely-out-of-adolescence in age, in terms of don't-know-what-to-do-with-my-feelings and resulting social awkwardness, so I think of this performance as one of the geekiest ever. Makes it easier to remember that Shakespeare wrote the character to be college student... Or it could just be because of that tee-shirt he's wearing in the scene ;-)

1) A thought which came to me, recently, about why sports fan enthusiasms are publicly celebrated and applauded (stripping off all your shirt in February, and painting your torso in your team's colors is terrific and will get your mug on TV, and the local paper!) but geeky enthusiasms are publicly derided (dressing up in a Third Doctor costume, accurate to a specific episode, and being able to name the costume designer who came up with it and why means you must be psychologically broken, and you probably still live in your parents' basement) --

"Geek," at root, originally meant "village idiot." Thus, it's someone who does not understand, nor values, the commonly held biases of the overarching culture. This makes "Geeks" suspect, especially by those who have a vested interest in maintaining the social status quo.

But Sports act as a proxy for society -- loyalty to "your team" equates to loyalty to your city (or high school, writes she who is currently living in the part of USA where high school football gets twenty minutes coverage on the news, every Friday night). And so this does not raise suspicion.

Geeky enthusiasms (gaming, comics, "genre" television and lit., etc) tend to be things where individual devotion and study yield as much or more satisfaction than organized group activities like sports.

Now, what this means in regards to Geek becoming "chic"... I don't know...

2) My cat Trixie has recently decided that my lap is the center of the universe, and she must be attached to it three-quarters of our mutually waking hours. As much as I love her, and enjoy having her flump over one forearm or the other... it does tend to slow down my typing...

3) Speaking of which, June and Camp!NaNoWriMo is coming, sooner than I was expecting... But I did buy a box of mini-bunny shaped cookies in preparation (to have on hand to give myself rewards for reaching word goals).

4) Semi-randomly: here's an eleven minute video on YouTube that made me so happy this week, I almost cried: Trevor Nunn Coaches David Suchet on Shakespeare's Sonnet #138 (Thank the gods and muses for unscrupulous publishers who want to profit off a playwright's fame!)

5) Regarding the Steven Moffat & Mark Gatiss reboot of Sherlock Holmes: The problem with being familiar with the source material is that the titles alone can be spoilers... So -- does anyone know if there will be a third season?

Such a variety of things I meant to post today. But this is what my mind kept returning to.

Still reading... still seeing links between Monster Theory and Disability ... Something.

Today's half-paragraph:

(Quote)

Similarly, Cohen has argued that the monster refuses “to participate in the classificatory “order of things”” and provides a significant challenge to binary systems of hierarchy, creating a need to re-evaluate concepts of order. He states that “the monster’s destructiveness is really a deconstructiveness: it threatens to reveal that difference originates in process, rather than in fact (and that “fact” is subject to constant reconstruction and change)” A keyword in this quotation, however, is ‘threatens’, since a monster such as the medieval dragon maiden may point towards artificial boundaries and ideas of order but she is never allowed to break them down. This limitation on her monstrous character is brought on by the context in which she features, as some medieval thinkers may have doubted the waythe world was ordered but they did not doubt that there was an order to the world. The truth was, as it were, out there and it was up to the human to try and understand it.

(Unquote)

{Meanwhile: the Chorus in my Head makes the following comment}

Of course the Human is the only one allowed to decide what Right and Proper Order is: It's whichever Order that puts that Human on Top.

(In the meantime, I'll be in the back, rooting for the monster. One of these days, she's bound to break through!

As I was snacking on an apple, the other day (Yesterday? The day before?), I realized that the tiny, dried, green leaves at the apple's blossom end were the dried remains of the calyx, which, when the apple was still a flower, had hugged and protected the ovules.

So: does that mean we could say that the apple's blossom end is its belly button?

Why yes, I am easily amused. Why are you looking at me funny?

Questions that have been rolling around in my head since the end of the American Spring Television Season*:

Why do mass media cater to hipsters, and treat geeks as second-class citizens, especially in entertainment (my working definitions of those two terms, for those who missed 'em)? And is the Hipster class, in part, created by mass media?

My thought -- and I admit this may be nothing more than "pretty to think so" -- is that yes, mass media, and particularly television, help to craft the hipster class, and that's why they cater to them -- as a sort of domesticated consumer pet. But here's why I think that:

Both Geeks and Hipsters value the intellect, and eschew the popular trends of the culture. However, hipsters have an active scorn for popular culture as "beneath them" (Judging by the hipster-written definitions of "hipster" at UrbanDictionary.com, anyway). And geeks don't care much for popular culture simply because they're so engrossed by their own favorite things to notice what's popular and what's not.

And that's why I think media, and in particular, television, promotes the hipster class: They need a class of young, stylish, people who see themselves as the avant-garde so they can sell their eyeballs to advertisers, to be "early adopters" for a continual stream of new things to buy. So intellectual curiousity is valued -- the media and the marketplace need at least some people who are not afraid of new ideas. Both Geeks and hipsters have that curiosity.

What sets hipsters apart from geeks (and why the television industry loves them) is that scorn. Because as soon as something goes from being avant garde to popular, you need to have people who declare it "Soo last year (month, week, yesterday)!" The problem with geeks is: they fall in love with something, and they tend to stay in love it. They might, indeed, be young men between the ages of 18 and 34, but their trend-setting habits align them more with the 50-year olds.

Think of the most common jokes (in television sitcoms and romcom movies, particularly) mocking the geek for geek stereotypes: a man in his 30s or 40s who still has his Star Wars action figures from when he was 12.

That's why I think of CBS's The Big Bang Theory as a hipster show masquerading as a 'geek pride' show. Yes, all the four male leads are framed as highly intellectual, geeky, scientists... But all the laugh lines basically boil down to: "oh, my god! How ridiculously geeky is that?!"

And the one male lead who is paired with the only female lead** (who happens to be blonde and thin, and speaks with a piping girl voice, and is framed by the narrative as "The object of desire"), is the one who rolls his eyes at the others.


...Either that, or I'm still judging the show for that one line in its theme song: "The autotrophs began to drool." I mean, if that's not geek-science-biology fail, I don't know what is!*** It's like someone just scanned the Internet for cool sounding science words, and put them together into a song, without caring if it makes any sense or not. And it's that aloof not-caring that flagged the show as 'hipster,' to me.

I was going to go on, and write further about geekery and disability. But this has taken up too much space-time already.

*Summer, in American television, is when the regular primetime shows go into hiatus and/or reruns, and stations bring out all their "reality" programs to fill the airwaves -- like Fear Factor, Big Brother, Wipe-Out, and the like, and I find myself scrambling to do anything but watch television. So, since I'm not watching ... not caught up wondering what will happen in the next episode ... I find myself reflecting on the season just past. So, specifically, this question popped into my head at the end of Chuck, which, I think, is quintescentially "Geek vs. Hipster"

**Oh, how TBBT fails at the Bechdel test, let me count the ways ... eh... never mind.

*** "Auto" means 'self' "Troph" means 'food.' So Autotrophs are .... plants. And I've never seen a drooling geranium. Have you?

A week ago tonight, I posted the following in this space:

(quote) Do you think Geek and Hipster make sense as "opposites"? It's an idea that's fermenting in m'head... (unquote)

And clamnebula replied shortly after, that he thought that a lot of hipsters were geeks, once upon a time, and maybe many of them still are.

The comment took me back -- so much so, that I didn't even reply to that point at the time (sorry, Neb). And it got me thinking that maybe "hipster" doesn't mean what I think it means.

So I looked it up in that infallible* resource of cultural definition: Urban Dictionary (the "hipster"). And I was rather surprised (to put it mildly) that the top-rated listing was so glowing and appreciative of the hipster class (So no, I guess it didn't mean what I thought it meant to the people defining it). That top review concluded:

(Quote) Anti-hipster sentiment often comes from people who simply can't keep up with social change and are envious of those who can. (unquote)

I wasn't really aware that "hipster culture" was a thing, really, until the last few years, when I started reading the word in the context of disability-rights blogs written by friends and friends of friends. Going solely by the use of "hipster" in these contexts, I came to define the word like this:

Someone (usually young and privileged) who professes allegiance to progressive culture and politics, but really, for whom the highest value is irony. People who tell racist jokes, for example, and then defend themselves by saying that they're really just making fun of the racists. And if you get offended, it's just because you're not intelligent (or "hip") enough to understand the irony and subtlety.

In other words, the central attributes of (what I have been thinking of as) "Hipsterism" is aloofness, and irony -- playing it cool -- holding the world at arm's length, and therefore, believing you really are superior to everyone who disagrees with you.

And then, recently, I happened to flip to the very end of that new sitcom "Happy Endings" on ABC (American broadcast). And the main cast were just arriving at a party they thought was going to be a celebration of the 1980's... except, when they got there, it turned out the party was being thrown by hipsters, and all they really wanted to do was make fun of '80s fashion and music, not celebrate it (not sure which episode it was -- can't remember if there was a mention of zombies at the end?).

Anyway -- a little over a week ago, I defined "Geek" like this:

...[G]leeful enthusiasm is what makes a geek, imnsho. And so, our "rattling on" about whatever has sparked our imagination comes across to our "fellow villagers" as inane babbling.

.

So it's on that axis that I think of "Hipster" and "Geek" as opposites: The former is ironic and aloof (according to me) and the latter is gleeful and enthusiastic.

I can see how they're both on the same end of the cultural spectrum in terms of embracing intellectualism, though. But it's the attitude that sets the two groups apart.

Well?

Am I way off the mark, here, definitions-wise? Have I been misreading context?
*in an satirical meaning of "infallible"