The Recent Evolution of 'Geek'.

Back in the earlier years of secondary school, I remember being bullied. The reason I was picked on was in fact not a reason, but three reasons. One, I did not have the most athletic of builds (unless, if when I say ‘athlete’ you think of those partaking in shot put, weightlifting or a hot dog eating contest. In that case, yes I had a very athletic build); Two, I had a lot of hair that made me look like a ‘Mega Bloks’ figure (Not a ‘Lego’ figure. Lego figurine hair was way cooler than mine); and Three, I was really smart. I was called a geek and a nerd and I hated it. Now, however, the term “Geek” and “Nerd” are thrown about all the time, sometimes in instances that could be described as inappropriate. Here’s the dictionary definition of those two words.

Geek, noun.

1: An unfashionable or socially inept person.

2: A person with an eccentric devotion to a particular interest.

Nerd, noun.

1: A foolish or contemptible person who lacks social skills or is boringly studious.

2: An intelligent, single minded expert in a particular technical discipline or profession.

"Oh my gosh! They seriously used Comic Sans in a widely published academic textbook?!"

Do not assume that the message here is that these words should be solely used in the way that they were spat towards those who were regarded as “unpopular”. Rejoice in the fact that they are now used as a non-offensive term. Screw it, create Nerd Day if you want, a day when everyone fixes every problem with maths and duct tape; a day when people learn what “127.0.0.1 is where the heart is” actually means; a day when everybody types at thirty five words per minute. Go nuts!

What could be seen as disagreeable is when people use it to describe themselves for the wrong reasons. Some may say that Chuck Lorre holds some of the blame. Well, not Lorre himself, but one of his creations.

Back in 2007, Lorre’s award winning sitcom, The Big Bang Theory hit screens. American television was still trying to find a show to take on the role of the late cash cow, Friends. The Big Bang Theory (along with other ‘Friends-type’ comedies such as How I Met Your Mother) was a welcome replacement, and could appeal to the largest audience. With its references to science and stereotypical geek culture as its main selling point it appealed to geeks and nerds the world over. At the same time its humour, though relying on science and geek culture references, was simplified enough so that anyone watching the show would probably get the joke.

"The Big Bang Theory cast."

The existence of The Big Bang Theory should not be loathed in the slightest. It is a funny, clever, well-written show with a team behind it that has worked hard to make it as popular as it is today (though featuring Kaley Cuoco in some skimpy outfits couldn’t have hurt). However, it is from this blend of simplified jokes based around scientific subject matter and a set of storylines which have already been tried and tested by Friends and Seinfeld, which created a group of viewers who think themselves geeks, yet are not. Not even in the sense of the newer definitions that were mentioned earlier.

Someone being obsessed with shoes or football, and dubbing themselves a ‘geek’ or ‘nerd’ of that particular topic does indeed conform with the most recent changes in the definitions of the terms, and they may be (in my opinion, rightly) told “Go ahead, live your geeky life to its nerdy fulfilment. You have my blessing.” Yet can someone who simply, finds the jokes featured in The Big Bang Theory funny, class themselves as a geek? Is it an example of someone attempting to identify with a group as part of a need to be ‘Safe in Numbers’? Perhaps it’s a sign of people wishing they were smarter, and believing that labelling themselves as a geek is the first step on that journey, or is it merely that language is evolving so fast that the terms ‘nerd’ or ‘geek’ already mean something else? Maybe they are now used to refer to someone who can understand humour which has been simplified especially for them, and if that is the case, does it even matter? Am I getting involved in a debate that just doesn’t need to happen? As always your thoughts and comments on the matter are welcome.

I’ll see you when the light that radiates from the sun is reflected off your body, enters my eye and is then processed by my brain.

Why I Will Probably Always Prefer the Fallout Universe to the Elder Scrolls Universe.

The brands of Fallout and The Elder Scrolls are well known in the gaming community, with the latter gaining more popularity since 2011 with the release of the fifth Elder Scrolls game, Skyrim. I'm not going to get into the age old debate of which one is better (because, frankly it would be much easier, and far less painful to remove my own teeth without using anaesthetic), what I will do, however, is list the reasons I have for favouring being burnt alive by robots with lasers than being hacked to bits by Orcs with battle axes, in a perhaps pointless attempt to express my love for Bethesda’s (oh so flawed) masterpiece.

I will first go out of my way to say that the later games in the Fallout series (Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas) were in no way perfect. They’re glitchy, could do with some better graphics in places and the downloadable content sometimes doesn't live up to the hype (although let’s face it, it’s better than Brink). The Elder Scrolls were, of course, exactly the same, until Skyrim was released. Sporting a brand new, shiny engine the graphics were far improved and though glitches were more abundant (due to the size of the world) they were less notable than those experienced in Fallout 3 or New Vegas (in my play through at least). It is however nothing about the glitches or graphics or DLC that makes me side with Fallout over Elder Scrolls. It is simply the lore.

"Have I got something in my teeth?"

Specifically it is the setting and explanations of how unusual events occur in the Elder Scrolls which I find tedious. Skyrim‘s setting, for example is the beautiful world of Tamriel, a land full of green pastures, dense forests and gargantuan, snow capped mountains. It has its problems such as dragons and giants but for the most part it is almost an Eden in which to thrive. It is a perfect world with something about to go wrong with it, and it is your job to stop that from happening. 
On the other hand, Fallout is a dystopia. Nuclear war has already occurred and the world has gone to pot. Martial law is enforced and the landscape is littered with a harsh wasteland of dead vegetation and buildings so dishevelled that you could only put them on the market in Essex. It’s a world that has already gone wrong and your role is to simply stop it from getting any worse (or to make it worse, depending on how you decide to play the game). I find that it is easier for me to identify with this world as firstly it is already set on our earth (albeit a parallel earth where the cold war never ended) and secondly due to how events are explained.

Let’s take the following example: Invisibility. In the Elder Scrolls, if a character is invisible then it tends to be explained away as ‘magic’. They have magic powers and as a result they can disappear. Admittedly sometimes it is explained that they obtained this ability by mixing some ingredients with magical properties to create a potion which they then drink to utilise this Bermuda Triangle-esque ability. Whereas in Fallout there is a science behind it. There is a device that emits stealth radiation, a fictional radiation which obscures the subject from view. Even though both of these ideas are truly absurd, I feel that the amount of effort it takes to create lore that says “Mix the wing of a moth with Vampire dust to make a drink that turns you invisible.” is far surpassed by the idea that there is a device that utilises an element of science fiction, science that someone had to spend time on and decide as to whether it was a viable solution to that pesky affliction of being seen.

"And for my next trick, I will make these Super Mutants disappear. Well... explode."

It is this extra effort that is essential to creating a believable world in Fallout that I find more appealing, compelling and interesting than that of Elder Scrolls. Is this amount of time and effort that Bethesda puts into their game creation a result of their commitment to back story and believability, or is it simply because that is the nature of the Sci-Fi and Fantasy genres? Whatever you think the answer is, I always welcome any feedback you may have in response to what is written here. 

I’ll see you in the Wasteland.