Variations of a Geek: 1 Noun, 2 Destinies
In the years since video games and Internet culture have gone mainstream, pundits have used phrases like “geek chic” to refer to the allure of cool associated with geek culture. But, I for one, take umbrage against such usage. For these pundits are only referring to one segment of this demographic.
According to thefreedictionary.com, a geek is:
1. a) A person regarded as foolish, inept, or clumsy.
b) A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept.
2. A carnival performer whose show consists of bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken.
The description in 1-b is the more commonly accepted definition, but for the purposes of this article, I will be focusing on definitions 1-a and 2 (symbolically speaking).
I find it telling that the other two definitions (1a and 2) describe attributes that hardly anyone would classify as cool, let alone chic. For while the geeks may have arguably inherited the Earth — just look at the proliferation of technology and all aspects of geek culture from video games to sci-fi to fantasy — what about those whose achievements are less than impressive?
Geeks makeup the firmament on which so much of our daily lives rest; but what of their less gifted brethren? What about the guy who loves sci-fi, MMORPGs, and can recite verbatim the differences between the Harry Osborn in the Spider-Man movies versus the original comic series or the Ultimate Spider-Man variants, but hasn't had a date in six years? I'm talking about the non MIT candidates who wouldn't know a compiler from a combine, and whose most noteworthy achievements are covering the rent and moving up a class on WOW.
I'm not trying to paint sci-fi, comic book and game aficionados with the same brush. I'm merely using these examples as a reference to some of the more popular stereotypes of geekdom, because there is a large distinction between the high-functioning Zen-geeks; the Bill Gates, the Linus Torvalds, the John Carmacks, and the remainder of the population who seemed to have gotten the ass-end of this label. I'm talking about the misfits who, to society at large, are neither fish nor fowl and are forever unsung — at least not without generous doses of irony.
In the worldwide endeavor to acquire and master new knowledge and skills there are those who excel, the High Geeks, and those who flounder, the Low Geeks. For the latter, life will always remain a struggle. These people have endured much of the same slights their more financially viable counterparts had growing up, but have not achieved the accompanying rise in status and affluence that comes with a High Geek's success. For the High Geeks, life only gets better as they accrue more wealth and/or status over time. The life course of the Low Geeks, on the other hand, follows an inverse trajectory: Through the passing of time and the accumulation of years, they become that much more pathetic and are therefor that much more derided in the eyes of the world. In essence, they're geeks with all of the calories and little, or none of the flavor. Those who fall under this category may be known by any (of several) unflattering labels: Beta males, otaku, basement dwellers. For the people on this side of the spectrum, the world is not their oyster, and they are, by definition, anything but chic.