> but instead [the potential intellectuals] are drawn to the easy honeypot of modern middlebrow culture because it is too nerdy, too attractive, too omnipresent, to ever leave.<p>What a strange conclusion. Ignoring auteur theory (the idea that you might bring artistic or intellectual value to an otherwise bland commercial work) entirely, all the author’s hypothesised potential intellectuals are simply making too much money doing Marvel movies…? And finding this intellectually and artistically stimulating enough…?<p>I don’t think that really tracks at all. It’s very hard to imagine Camus pieing off fighting for the French resistance or Hemingway staying home from the Spanish Civil War because they were satiated by their Funko Pop collections.<p>I think, generally, people who want to make meaningful contributions to a field are more driven than that, and there are tonnes of excellent critics and theorists - ‘intellectuals’ - working, unmurdered, in the arts today. They are less visible culturally partially because, with the decline of print media, they are not as profitable for media orgs as they previously were.<p>I <i>do</i> think that our puritanical cultural view of productivity-as-maximally-virtuous has created a lot of guilt in the middle classes about whether they spend their leisure time ‘intellectually enough’, which - though seductive in a masochistic way - is a completely absurd frame once broken down.<p>I wonder if the author might not be projecting their own anxieties, in this sense, onto their imagined peers.
<i>It’s very hard to imagine Camus pieing off fighting for the French resistance or Hemingway staying home from the Spanish Civil War because they were satiated by their Funko Pop collections.</i><p>It's a lot less hard to imagine a person with the potential to be <i>the next Hemingway</i> staying home because they're satiated by diving headfirst into the MCU though.<p>Intelligent people throwing their potential away because they've been distracted by some utterly trivial nonsense is not a new story, and it's not <i>really</i> anything society needs to worry about (it's their choice; society has no claim on their potential) but I reckon there's a fair few people who'll be lying on their deathbed with deep regrets about how they made becoming an expert in the canon and lore of a media franchise was a huge waste of time that only really served to funnel money to George Lucas or Marvel.
[dead]
I always thought I was a nerd, but I was never into super heroes or fantasy books/movies and I was never into playing Pokemon or Magic the Gathering. Star Wars didn't appeal to me and neither did Lord Of The Rings nor Narnia nor Harry Potter. I wasn't even that big into video games, although I did spend quite a lot of time playing some of the big titles (Vice City for example) but I spent way more time flying in MS Flight Simulator and FlightGear.<p>When I was little I was fascinated by big engines and in general driven by the curiosity of wanting to know how everything worked. I would disassemble every piece of electronics in the household. I was into model airplanes and gliders. I was obsessed with building electric motors. I was also really big into steam machines. Everything steam was just cool. Then computers took over my life. Today I find myself nerding out about wood working and back garden agriculture when I'm not doing AI stuff.<p>I still believe I qualify as a nerd.
> I still believe I qualify as a nerd.<p>And you absolutely should! There is not _the_ nerd archetype and never has been.
> super heroes or fantasy books/movies and I was never into playing Pokemon or Magic the Gathering. Star Wars didn't appeal to me and neither did Lord Of The Rings nor Narnia nor Harry Potter. I wasn't even that big into video games<p>Aren’t all of these things mainstream escapism?
> it felt like there was not a teenage girl in a hundred miles who had read A Game of Thrones<p>> I feel a certain lack, an empty space where a particular kind of person should be—all those who used to read comic books<p>The author describes how there are so few nerds in their ideal, nostalgic time, yet there is somehow a void where there should now be a bountiful amount of nerds in the modern times?<p>Anecdata tells me the nerds are there. They're just in their own spaces. Out of the public eye.<p>With the internet the way it is now (bots, scams, AI, overrun of nerd spaces, clamping down of internet speech) I don't blame any of them. You can't be on the public internet anymore and have a good time. The platforms got too big, the rules so impersonal. The interesting people went elsewhere. Left with this hallow "majority". Or as the author says<p>> it’s problematic that the taste of the majority is swamping out the minority<p>The "intellectual nerd", the minority, is just elsewhere. If you want to find them, you have to put in the time and the effort to move your eyes or your self there. Cultivate your social surroundings.
It's sad watching Magic: the Gathering shift away from nerds towards mainstream profits. I wasn't a fan of Marvel growing up, but I wonder if there is a similar sense of loss.<p>MTG started with a metaphor of wizards casting spells at each other, often with dark overtones, and it was heavily game-play focused. The fantasy elements kept most mainstream audiences away. I was drawn to the fringe aspects of both as an adolescent. So were my best friends.<p>Now, it's basically aiming to be Pokemon with game mechanics almost a second thought. Compare an early magic staple, "Demonic Tutor" with <a href="https://bossminis.co.uk/cdn/shop/products/881e5922-b464-4a1a-b074-664bd6c0a7f6_800x.jpg?v=1569212581" rel="nofollow">https://bossminis.co.uk/cdn/shop/products/881e5922-b464-4a1a...</a> with just the box of one of the latest sets: <a href="https://unicorncards.co.uk/images/thumbs/0246004.jpeg" rel="nofollow">https://unicorncards.co.uk/images/thumbs/0246004.jpeg</a> to get a sense of the vector.<p>This makes sense financially, and Wizards of the Coast (MTG producers) is having its best year ever, but capitalism definitely has its downsides.
> Compare an early magic staple, "Demonic Tutor" with <a href="https://bossminis.co.uk/cdn/shop/products/881e5922-b464-4a1a" rel="nofollow">https://bossminis.co.uk/cdn/shop/products/881e5922-b464-4a1a</a>... with just the box of one of the latest sets: <a href="https://unicorncards.co.uk/images/thumbs/0246004.jpeg" rel="nofollow">https://unicorncards.co.uk/images/thumbs/0246004.jpeg</a> to get a sense of the vector.<p>I mean, you're comparing a black card to the set as a whole? And you think that's fair?<p>Here are 3 of the top 6 black commanders:<p><a href="https://cards.scryfall.io/display/front/d/6/d67be074-cdd4-41d9-ac89-0a0456c4e4b2.webp?1783921327" rel="nofollow">https://cards.scryfall.io/display/front/d/6/d67be074-cdd4-41...</a><p><a href="https://cards.scryfall.io/display/front/4/f/4f087b1c-97e0-4379-a94d-beac53685314.webp?1783911216" rel="nofollow">https://cards.scryfall.io/display/front/4/f/4f087b1c-97e0-43...</a><p><a href="https://cards.scryfall.io/display/front/7/2/72e4548b-c171-4f10-b896-af37543dcf0f.webp?1783944312" rel="nofollow">https://cards.scryfall.io/display/front/7/2/72e4548b-c171-4f...</a><p>The culture of magic (and nerd-dom in general) has definitely changed, I won't argue that. But when you use an example like this, it kinda undercuts your entire point.
there used to be a distinction between nerds and geeks
Could have been put in a few short sentences, most of which would be wrong.
I don’t think the author’s thesis is right, and actually his first inclination is correct. No one starts liking nerdy stuff because Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos does, because no one really wants to be them. They want their money, success, etc. but not to be <i>them</i>, in the way you’d want to be a movie star or athlete.<p>So I think it’s an under-discussed thing that the art forms which lend themselves to the most profitable “ecosystem” are ones that get pushed in a commercial-driven culture. You can only make so much money by selling people a book or an individual print / painting. Much better to sell merch for your media franchise, which includes books movies toys, etc.
>> while most intellectuals are nerds, not all nerds are intellectuals. In fact, the majority of nerds aren’t intellectuals.<p>I'd argue that this is a recent phenomenon that started <i>at exactly the same time the author claims nerd culture finally became dominant</i>, which he associated with the LoTR films.<p>Nothing mainstream is ever intellectual, and anything that reaches vast audiences simply ends up with a lot of people on the bandwagon trying to imitate it.<p>Nerd culture is no different from hippie culture or jazz culture, in that 99% of the people who want to claim it are followers. They're incurious, largely cowards who feel safe in numbers, who would've been afraid of those cultures or laughed at them when they was still underground, until peer pressure made them adopt them. Or rather, co-opt them. Because nothing true about those cultures remains once they've been co-opted. Unlike original nerds, hippies or jazz musicians, <i>anyone</i> flaunting those styles now is a conformist. The exact opposite of the nonconformists who pioneered those mentalities. An attention seeker instead of one at odds with society.<p>That being said: Because I'm a nerd from the 80s, I don't care so much about wannabe hippies or jazz snob. But it's especially galling to watch 20 year old idiots wearing nerd culture like a skin suit.
It's not nerdism, it's just a general infantilism. It suits anyone with power as the plebs now don't have the ability to reason about policy when they're infinitely doom-scrolling 15 second cat videos.
Back in my day, "nerd" meant actually being an intellectual. You know, reading books, doing math, being interested in physics, etc. How did consuming comic book slop become false signaling for what Nerdom once was?
That’s not really what the word intellectual has meant for the last century. Intellectual is more akin to “liberal arts major” in modern language: philosophers, writers, art critics, etc.
I always thought that "geek" described all those things, and with some level of intellectual accomplishment. Wheras "nerd" was a more obsessive, less self-aware form - like people who know all the stats about a particular comics character.<p>But apparently I have them reversed in my head, for reasons that unsure of. Perhaps growing-up in a country that was not then saturated with US pop-culture is to blame. Etymology references arent particularly revealing in this case, as they just tell me what I already know.
I was never into comics, but the impression I get is that many "actual nerds" were. And that's something that was clearly visible from the outside.<p>And since everything nowadays seems to be about surface-level signaling, cultures get represented by whatever is most visible.<p>So, for "actual nerds", that is comic books, I guess. Nobody will pay attention to <i>what</i> those comic books were (no idea if there were any of the "non-slop" kind). People spending hours poring over some math/physics/other textbook in their homes or libraries weren't exactly visible to the others. They were just the "pasty weirdos".
All of it was "being a nerd" back in your day. "Comic book nerd" was a stereotype that predated the internet by a generation.<p>People forget that "nerd" was just an insult, it wasn't an identity. It's was something people called you when they were beating the shit out of you for violating social and physical norms, and like the f slur it could be very loosely applied.
Came here to say exactly this. Since when was being a nerd about consumer preferences?<p>But then I start wondering if we are just gatekeeping nerddom?
> Since when was being a nerd about consumer preferences?<p>Being a nerd has almost always been about consumer preferences. Everything from baseball cards to anime, comics, D&D, video games, all of the staples of nerd culture are also consumer culture.
The article’s length planning and argumentative process are too bad to feel like AI slop.<p>It's human slop.
I don't buy the article's thesis because tech bros are neither spending on the sector nor are they popular.<p>I have a simpler explanation, also applies to the 'Otaku-fication' of anime. Miyazaki complained that the people making anime now do nothing but watch anime. Try making Patlabor II now. Same for comic adaptions, upside to them is you can do them if all you ever did was watch TV and read comics. Many games now exclusively deal with the tropes of games.<p>In a culture where the dominant activity is media consumption you get a Baudrillard-like media-on-media ouroboros without any reference to base reality
[dead]
> the rise of science fiction or the prominence of science popularizers in the culture<p>Nothing has done more damage to science and education than science fiction and the heavy handed politics usually injected into it. People are rarely into scifi for the science at all. It's a mostly pretentious and anti-intellectual group. Look at all the dogshit we step in every day about "AI", "the technological singularity", or "living in a simulation". Where do you think the terms came from, and who do you think are the biggest believers in those delusions?<p>> Now I’m one of the adults and suddenly everyone is a nerd. In fact, nerdom is one of our last uniting cultural forces.<p>It's a very low effort means of finding acceptance and recognition through trivia and groupthink. Some of the most sociopathic, lowbrow, petty, and generally horrible people I've ever met refer to themselves as "nerds". A cursory glance at reddit would demonstrate this all on its own.<p>Talented people don't go around putting a label on themselves or promoting ideologies.