Uncomfortable in geek spaces

I feel the more I get closer to God, the more uncomfortable geek spaces become. Although technically anything can become an idol, even seemingly holy things at that, whenever they usurp the place of God but geek culture is kind of peculiar in how it kind of usually passes the radar of most Christians. Especially whenever you exclude the likes of Harry Potter and Dungeons and Dragons, that it seems large swathes of geek culture are weirdly innocuous despite posing similar problems at any point in time. Another problem is the rampant sexualisation of fictional characters, like how fans get really attached to certain characters as to porn of them (I did it before to something like the Punisher for instance).

But I more I become a Christian, the more abhorrent it gets. To the point where one’s best chance of not encountering this filth at any point is to avoid geek spaces altogether, because more often than not the wholesome stuff often coexists with the sleazier and more sexualised aspects. Often in the same spaces wherever I encounter, even if not all geeks are like this. But they are very filthy places that you’re better off without those, like if you don’t want to encounter sexualised versions of any cartoon character imaginable, you’d avoid these at any point because they’ll show up at unexpected times and places. I struggle with lust from time to time, not as often as other sins, but it’s there and I don’t want these with me anymore.

Even geek bloggers that do raise good points will from time to time post unwholesome content, that it’s like encountering filth where it shouldn’t be. It may not always involve porn, but it’s gotten to the point where I’d have to avoid these kinds of spaces to keep it from hurting me, and to the point where I’d have to go to less geeky places at times to avoid encountering such rubbish. I wound up missing these bloggers at times, but if they’re not a good influence to me I’d have to avoid them. In that sense, geek spaces are very worldly spaces. Though similar things can be said of less geeky things in life, but in geek culture this is amplified due to how consumerist it is, how idolatrous it really gets and so on. They’re also really sexualised, so they’re not good.

At other times it’s really vexing and conflicting because you don’t want to hate them, yet you feel like cutting them out of your life and you also love them, that it’s going to be tough managing these feelings that it’s likely even God felt the same things about his followers and worshippers. Wishing them well, loving them unconditionally, yet not tolerating their vices any longer that it’s real difficult cutting them off from your life, yet you don’t want to hate them either. Sometimes praying for these people is better, even if it doesn’t always turn out right (as it is in my case many times over). But it’s still telling that the people you associate with will influence you in some way or another, sometimes for good and sometimes for ill (as noted in the Bible with the latter).

Fandom and especially geek fandoms kind of amplify these problems in very unnecessary ways, where sins take you further than you want to, which kind of affected this one Backstreet Boy fan that I know of who’s on her way to becoming a good Christian. But compounded by that how strange it is for somebody like Brian Littrell to be a professing Christian, yet still go on in the music industry without being concerned for his fans’ spiritual well-being as to be judged by God for this. Since he’s her favourite Backstreet Boy and she’s a fellow Christian like him, it’s kind of tragic why they never prayed for each other. Though honestly, I never prayed for other BSB members to get saved due to my own disdain for them. (Admittedly similar things have happened to me before, so it resulted in losing pets also the way.)

But it’s still kind of depressing why Littrell never seem concerned for her well-being, despite being Christians themselves, that he effectively made himself a stumbling block for her and others. The nature of geek fandom and in this case, Backstreet Boys fandom, exacerbates it that it would be better to do a Zac Hanson instead: do the unthinkable to get back to God, even if this means losing a good number of fans along the way, just to do God’s will more. But unfortunately the Backstreet Boys would rather much keep their fans and have them attend BSB cruises where one ought to attend church to worship God instead, that it’s on them why there’ll be more scandals coming to them in a succession. Rape scandals with Nick, possible infidelity scandals with other BSB members with BSB fans admitting to having affairs with them.

And likely with this fangirl if the Bible says that merely looking at another person risks being adulterous, then she has effectively cheated on her now ex-husband by writing pornographic BSB fanfictions a lot. I feel the nature of secular fandoms make it easy to do inappropriate things a lot more, that the struggle to not do these things gets complicated by these communities. Geek fandoms are practically no different and may exacerbate things far more than one intends to, it’s like with the nature of transformative fandoms you have women seeking to sexualise whatever they enjoy, but the heart is deceitful and it’s likely they’re deluding themselves to be more progressive than they really are (it’s even suspected by others).

It’s hard taking their claims to bisexuality seriously if they’re far more attracted to men than they are to women, that they might as well be straight. I knew of one woman who thought that she’s a lesbian but the fact that she remained attracted to men has her concluding that she’s bisexual, so it’s likely these fangirls might find it hard to admit that they’re straight even when it’s obvious that they’re more fixated on men than on women that they’d have to not only admit their heterosexuality but also own it. If the truth sets you free, then admitting that they’re straight would have them realising the obvious. Being honest about their heterosexuality would have them realising they were never really attracted to women, don’t struggle with these feelings and would likely explain their misogyny in a weird way.

Even then it’s kind of hard for people to admit to what they’re doing is wrong or ultimately untrue about what they actually do (I kind of struggle with lying from time to time), that this involves owning their actual feelings and intentions whether if they like it or not. Or any other vice that I feel geek spaces are going to be toxic from the inside out, that you’re better off without these communities for long. I have been in trollish communities before and it has affected my conduct, now I don’t go to these communities anymore but the sentiment lingers when it shouldn’t. So cutting off other toxic people would be the only way to minimise these feelings and problems over time, or anything else that’s toxic. Even if it’s hard at times when we have sympathies for these people and things, even praying for them that it’s kind of hard at times.

And also confusing because you want to wish them well, be closer to God and so on that loving your enemies is going to be tough in another way, so it’s going to be vexing for people like me at various points so. Love is hard, loving your enemies is hard, loving people despite their sins is hard, love is the most vexing and conflicting feeling one can have towards people. But if loving people means making them stop doing things, the way God does to us then it’s more loving to get them to stop doing wrong. I’m like this with one cousin who bothered me before and I do a lot to pray for her to stop doing these things that will ruin her life even further if she doesn’t stop, like bullying people or reading porn that at any point somebody will catch her doing this and it’s going to embarass her a lot.

If something like sin or vice finds you or anybody else, well it’s going to be humiliating being caught in the act as it is with me before, or possibly with her at any point if somebody catches her doing certain inappropriate things in private or whatever that’s going to humiliate her in the future. Or the Backstreet Boys for another matter for turning themselves in to a stumbling block that it’s going to be really embarassing if their fans admit to having affairs with them, that it’ll be really controversial the world over why the Backstreet Boys even encourage it themselves and moreso if all the BSB members do it. It’s a shame to be caught dead sinning, but fandom makes it worse because they let these people get away with it. I even said that fandom is concentrated idolatry and I struggle with idolatry and disobedience many times over.

Along with pride, bitterness and hatred that I strive not to do these things, but I keep on doing them anyways. It’s hard but it’s true many times over, stumbling and failing, getting comeuppances and stuff, but it’s painful and I don’t want it anymore. It’s hard because I’ve been rebellious many times over, to others like my father and to God, that I’m ashamed of myself. I wish to do better, but I fail a lot and feel depressed about it. I feel like I do nothing right, despite wishing to. Things could get better and it has before, but I wish life would be better so I’ll get better. But my sins know no end until I die, and I feel depressed over not achieving my goals the way I want to. And it’s likely true for other Christians, pardon if I’ve gotten off-tangent. But the world is no good and geek culture’s part of it, so it’s going to be bad anyways.

She doesn’t feel good

She doesn’t feel good around

Fanboys, doesn’t relate to them

Despite having their interests.

A Pedantic Form Of Storytelling

I don’t get why many nerds in the west demand and enjoy worldbuilding this much, if because people are perfectly capable of knowing they read fiction and can fill in the gaps without being too pedantic. I might have my own moments of pedantry at times, so I might not be exempt from this in some way or another. But the thing with worldbuilding is that it’s a form of pedantic storytelling that relies on having to state the obvious, expounding on the little details way too much and stuff. A normal reader/writer would understand the story as it is and focus on the more important details, but those who’re into worldbuilding demand more details than necessary.

I really don’t get why nerds feel compelled to make fictional cultures for their stories, basing those after actual cultures that if you do a Slovenian-coded character, one could have easily gone with making them actually Slovenian. At other times I feel the demand for worldbuilding makes a story more unwieldly than if it didn’t have it in spades, look no further than what happened to the Star Wars stories over the years. The best known Star Wars stories and characters, up until the Disney sequels, are the ones that directly sprang from George Lucas’s mind alone. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that he’s not beholden to the earlier Expanded Universe stories, since they kind of betrayed his personal vision for the series.

When you have so many writers adding unnecessary touches and details to his vision, it makes it so unwieldly and incomprehensible as to be rebooted to clarify it to the wider public. Not to mention Lucas is kind of selective with what he allows and likes, up to his retirement so far, that it shouldn’t be surprising why so little of the original Expanded Universe remains. I feel like worldbuilding often makes stories more complicated than necessary, since you’d have to waddle through redundant details to get to the heart of the story. Lore seems nice at first but I feel getting to the heart of the story should take greater priority, since that’s the most important component.

Worldbuilding seems like a really weird exercise in storytelling, one that demands ridiculous amounts of pedantry on the author’s part. Something like Lord of The Rings has kind of laid the foundations for this, where its own author felt compelled to construct a made-up world. Complete with made-up histories and made-up languages for its inhabitants, despite earlier stories based on folklore not relying on this much to the same extent that he did. No wonder why he’s so influential to subsequent fantasy writers, ridiculous amounts of pedantry put into storytelling seems like real nerd bait. This is something that escapes me for most of the part, it’s not that worldbuilding is entirely absent in other fantastical stories.

But the amount of pedantry others like Tolkien put into their own stories is pretty much too much, like stories could do without those and let readers fill in the gaps. There’s something about nerd culture like emphasises minutiae over actually analysing the overall themes and messages conveyed in the stories, like how there’s a tendency for geek fandoms to mention otherwise very minor and even redundant characters. But not so much on the overall message and theme, like the possibility of X-Men’s Storm being a white person’s idea of an exotic black woman, which is what she practically and essentially is. (One would wonder why a Kenyan writer* never got a chance to depict her at all.)

Perhaps the latter does exist but it’s easier to focus on the little details, instead of deciphering the whole message and themes the story conveys. The preference for worldbuilding in storytelling, over merely telling the story one does, is pretty strange to me since the stories could’ve done without those. It’s something that I don’t get and will never get for most of the part, since it’s easier to focus on the little made-up details instead of the overall whole of the story.

*Though the comics/cartooning industries in African countries tend to be small, they are present on some level like how newspapers like Vanguard and The Guardian contain these, South Africa even produced comics that got television adaptations like Supa Strikas and Madam and Eve, like Kenya claims both Bogi Benda and Shujaaz.

Geek-cartoony

A word that I use to describe the way geeks do cartoony and the like, though it does vary in style it’s got more to do with the overall atmosphere, themes and air it deploys and carries. To give you the difference between geek-cartoony and normie-cartoony, I present to you these illustrations.

This is normie-cartoony as taken from this website, not that it’s any less fannish but it’s not so greatly fannish compared to geek-cartoony and it reaches out to a wider audience. It’s not that fannish because it doesn’t indulge in geek fan interests that much, so it’s unlikely to make a lot of references to things geeks are into. Another example of normie-cartoony would be this one from the New Yorker.

Though it does overlap with geek-cartoony, the difference has more to do with the overall theme and air. Even if it does have anthropomorphic animals, it doesn’t necessarily target furries as much as the band Kiss doesn’t necessarily target Goths even if both dress in black. Geek-cartoony tends to uniquely address things pertaining to geek culture in some form or another.

Notice this one from Penny Arcade, it’s actually part of a cartoon that addresses game development. There are games that do appeal to normies, often the least complex on a computer as well as mobile games. But there are games that do appeal to geeks a lot, these are often more complex as well as delve in subject matters that appeal to geeks. Something like Overwatch (for want of a better example).

Sometimes geek-cartoony and normie-cartoony look indistinguishable at first, which gets evident whenever these are drawn realistically or identically. But the difference lies in the subject matter and overall air it carries, this is precisely the difference between something like The Eltingville Club and Doonesbury. Doonesbury targets a much wider audience, so the themes are things relevant to the general public.

The Eltingville Club addresses things relevant only to geeks, though it’s possible for a geek cartoonist like Zerocalcare to appeal to a wider audience. But the difference here is that even if Zerocalcare puts in geek references every now and then, he still manages to appeal to a wider audience because he addresses and portrays experiences outside of geek culture. That’s why in addition to being a skilled writer, his comics have become phenomena in his native Italy.

The comics he writes don’t always centre on geek culture, despite the references so it’s able to appeal to a far wider audience than than Eltingville Club’s author does. So geek cartooning is highly insular because of the subject matter it addresses and portrays, the stories will always be lost on those who aren’t big on geek culture in any way. It’s also more likely to portray characters who are such fans they might as well be glorified fanfiction self-inserts, as it is suspected with DC’s Tim Drake.

Though it could be argued that normie-cartooning also portrays fannish characters, these characters are much likelier to be into things the general public’s into if at all. If you wanted me to be very honest, a lot of geek pandering comics lack humanity. I’m not saying geeks are antisocial or something, but that the subject matter’s largely for people who’re really into geek culture. Yes I have read comics, but as I get older I get less involved in geekdom.

So these kinds of comics don’t appeal to me as much as it should, but I feel these kinds of comics (and the cartooning) are things relevant to such a narrow demographic that I get immediately left out. Not saying that geeks are massive-shut ins, but that the kind of stories they’re into aren’t always things I like reading. Likewise with regards to stylisation and if one wills cartooning, there’s a greater deal of bombast and a fannish air not found in normie-cartooning.

Witness the difference between two Canadian illustrators, Mary Brianne McKay and Drake Tsui where I feel although the former could be a geek herself (or at least geek-adjacent to some extent) her art’s not that big into geek culture. In Japan, there’s a discussion between what is moe/otaku pandering and what isn’t. There should’ve been a similar discussion outside of Japan, especially when it comes to the peculiarities of geek cartooning and illustration.

I feel there needs one because sometimes the way geeks do cartoons/cartooning and art is sometimes different from what normie illustrators and cartoonists do, which has more to do with the overall air and theme though sometimes it’s evident in how it’s drawn. I guess why the Japanese have this discussion because they immediately know the difference between what is otaku–pandering and what isn’t, especially when it comes to anything moe.

Moe being something that immediately attracts otaku attention, something like cat ears and thigh high tights. It’s possible to deotaku cat eared characters, but to successfully do so would be to allow a wider range of influences into such stories. I have actually done cartoons featuring kemonomimi characters, but they act exactly like normal humans. So there is a difference between mine and the usual kemonomimi manga, which has them act like animals.

(I pretty much blame this on liking Carl Barks comics.)

Geek-cartooning frequently addresses and portrays things geeks are into, not so much that they’re autistic but such stories are full of in-jokes only geeks would get. But this is me rambling on what makes a cartoon geeky or not.

Evangelical Resentments

From my experience, it’s terribly not uncommon to see Evangelicals and Pentecostals rag on Catholics a lot, so much so that it’s their way of showing what they’re doing is superior, even though God says it’s still boasting to see yourself as better than others even sinners like them. They keep on ragging on Catholics for ‘worshipping’ Mary, even though some have made idols out of the unemployed housewife. Instead of doing away Marianismo, they recreated it in the form of complimentarianism.

Odder still is that for all their Biblical literalism, they seldom hold dogs and dog owners in the same regard they have for Catholics even if the Bible doesn’t have that high opinion of dogs either. The only Evangelicals who do so a lot tend to be Pentecostals from select countries like Cameroon, Ghana and Democratic Republic of Congo, where they associate them with witchcraft which makes them more biblically consistent since there’s a verse that mentions both dogs and sorcerers together.

I even have a nagging feeling why you don’t commonly see Evangelicals rag on dog owners that much is because Catholics constitute a very easy target for their resentment, even though dog owners should also be one of their targets especially when their love for dogs crosses over to idolatry. Maybe some of them do, but not enough to drown the rampant anti-Catholicism. Selective outrage much, to the point where it feels like hypocrisy despite their Biblical literalism.

Even stranger is that they should be good friends with Muslims, since they also don’t like the use of graven images in worship. But they also resent them a lot, not just that they worship a false god but they also remind them too much of themselves. Down to the fanatical obsession with women not showing skin or revealing clothes in any way, whereas this is relegated to a minority in Judaism. (Maybe that’s why Jews are wary of Evangelicals.)

Oddly enough, I feel geek culture might be a far better target for their resentment of idolatry. I have this feeling before, especially whenever geeks love the things they like without putting God first. Well most of them do, not that they’re autistic but that what they’re doing is idolatry refined into an art form or a science. Fan art can constitute a graven image far better than Catholic art of Jesus, since the latter at least honours God.

Everything they say about Catholics fits geek culture far better, especially since I had this revelation in life that the closer I get to God, the less I am involved in geek fandoms. Which’s a side effect of being this devoted to God, you can’t have any idols competing with God and this includes geek fandom idols. I feel if they did target fandom a lot the way they do with Catholicism, not just those suspected of witchcraft but anybody who gets in the way of God it would result in great controversy.

Like if they start targeting geek culture for idolatry, they’d have a better target for their resentment but one that would be far more controversial if they did this at all. I guess it really is selective outrage all the way, even though some prove better targets for their rage and anger than others.

Mutually exclusive

I remember saying this on my Tumblr that geek culture and the sciences can be and are mutually exclusive of one another, well at times, in the sense that one can be into astronomy and have little to no interest in geek culture. I guess it’s got to do with the belief if somebody’s smart about something, especially if it’s not mainstream or academic, they must be rather awkward even if it’s not always the case. I have known scientists who are experts in sociology, astronomy and biology but have no real or at least strong interest in geek culture whatsoever, a good number of the people I know who are deeply involved in geek culture are involved in the arts.

I guess that’s one aspect of geek culture that’s mostly ignored throughout the media, in the sense that most people expect scientists to be geeky but not artists. Even though the arts is (just) as important to geek culture, whereas the sciences may not always involve geek culture. Maybe to some extent, but so are the arts really. It probably does depend on the science, but I don’t think all people who’re into astronomy are geeky. There are people who get into biology because they like animals a lot, regardless if they’re geeky or not. Conversely speaking, some people get into illustration because they got inspired by something geeky like comic books for instance.

That’s actually the case with one children’s book illustrator, but he’s probably neither the first nor last example of such. Another became an art because of comics, no I’m not making this one up. There are some people who fit the science is geeky stereotype, but I don’t really know that much other than this one makeup maker and a chemist. Most of the geekiest people I know are deeply involved in the arts, be it illustration, comics or fiction writing. There may be some overlap between certain sciences, well not so much in others though it could also be said about the arts as well.

As for autism, it’s long been called the geek disorder but new research suggests that non-pathological narcissism is more commonly among geeks. I suspect it’s got more to do with how much of geek culture appeals to those with grandiose narcissism, especially when it comes to power fantasies. So much so it’s not always about being the underdog, but rather having such an elevated view of their own importance that having a power fantasy is one way to live it out. A lot of superhero stories are like this, especially when it comes to having a lot of above-average characters.

Many of them tend to be excellent fighters, have preternatural abilities or very enhanced skills and abilities like super-strength and superspeed that reading about them is to live out those narcissistic power fantasies. It’s easier to go with the awkward underdog angle because it plays into stereotypes about geekdom rather than geekdom as it actually is, without realising that superhero stories have traits that are very attractive to narcissists if it weren’t having so many above-average characters. Not that there aren’t any autistic people who’re into superheroes, but the nature of superhero comics is very appealing to narcissists.

If autism can be mutually exclusive of geek culture, perhaps we don’t really understand geeks as they are due to our expectations of them. Like their interests must so different from the rest that they’re supposed to be awkward underdogs, when in reality they’re more likely to have an inflated view of themselves that they get to live vicariously through fictional characters. Hence the preponderance of power fantasies and self inserts in fanfiction, and as I said before a lot of superheroes tend to be above-average anyways. Excellent in martial arts, espionage and technology.

This is why comic books like Cathy are unlikely to find a devoted audience among geeks because the characters tend to be rather average, not that they’re incompetent but they’re very normal people. They are interesting but never too flashy, since many geeks also have fantasy-proneness so they’ll gravitate to anything fantastical. It seems when it comes to geek culture, it’s easier to go with preconceptions than the reality of it. If because the actual reality is rather hard to describe at first for outsiders, but if being into science can be separate from geek culture so is autism since most geeks are rather narcissistic.

Odd isn’t it?

When it comes to the book Born to Kvetch, I kind of read this back in 2010 and I’m rereading it 13 years later I think. It’s about the Yiddish language and how it doesn’t leave a substantial body of nature writing, due to how most Ashkenazi Jews spent most of their time in urban areas back in Europe. Not that there aren’t any Jews writing about nature at all, they do but in some other language that is. The Bible contains a fair amount of nature writing, though much of it’s either prophetic or metaphorical.

The strangest thing is that Born to Kvetch sold a lot of copies and can be easily be found online for free, that’s if you use a special app to get it from the Internet Archive. This means more people have read Born to Kvetch than they ever would with any X-Men trade paperback, especially if this is a consistent bestseller at something like New York Times. But sadly, both the book and its author get stubs of an entry on Wikipedia. Even if Born to Kvetch is objectively more mainstream than X-Men books, it doesn’t get much attention from nerds.

I guess, when you think about it, despite its mainstream success Born to Kvetch would be pretty boring to the average nerd. Wait, scratch that, any novel by Michael Wex is boring to nerds. Admittedly, that’s not to say nerds can’t appreciate literary fiction at all. But I feel nerd love for all things nerdy sometimes drowns whatever non-nerds are into, if because nerds get real passionate about what they love. Or rather they openly do fanfiction of the things they love.

Much moreso than normal people do with their own, or perhaps in ways normal people don’t do much. Let alone to the same frequency, since I feel there’s a line between using fictional characters in art and making a lot of art based on a fictional character you love. Both are used to make statements, but there’s a difference between using a character like Rahne Sinclair to make a point about female werewolves in general and about her a lot in specific.

To put it this way, there’s a difference between writing about Superman as a nonfan and writing about Superman as a fan. Somebody who’s a fan is someone who’s really invested in the character, the brand and what it stands for since it’s something they like very much. Somebody who writes about Superman as a nonfan has some knowledge of the character, sometimes secondhand due to exposure to people who know him best.

But not much affection nor disdain attached to him, he’s just a famous character for other people. Perhaps other than a passing curiosity in him, that is though it still illustrates the difference between a fan and a nonfan. When it comes to what nerds love, they get vocal about it in ways normal people don’t always care about. While there are things that do crossover with what normal people do when they love or like something like football, they also do things normal people don’t do.

Something like writing fanfiction, cosplay or selling fanmade merchandise like fanzines for instance. Wikipedia is especially prone to this, so much so it inspired a meme where one compares an article on something that’s not nerdy to something that is. It’s getting better but the meme applies to a frightening extent, especially when entries for something as nerdy as Stephanie Brown is lengthier than an entry on something as mainstream as Born to Kvetch.

More people have read Born to Kvetch than they do with Batgirls, Robin and whatever magazine Stephanie Brown appears in, to the point where I’d say that the former is mainstream in a way the latter could never be. Now we have an app that lets you download normie books off of Internet Archive, but because nerd interests are pretty common and vocal online so it tends to drown whatever interest people have in literary fiction and the like.

I guess nerds were early adopters of the internet, so it makes sense that they get real vocal about what they look. Things have changed for the better, especially for normies, now that they can broadcast their interests as well. But there’s a demarcation between what normies do when they like something and what nerds do when they like something, especially whenever it pertains to fictional characters at all. Now if I were to do something similar, the Wikipedia entry for Chris Claremont is lengthier than the one for Valerie Martin. Oddly enough, I like the latter more than the former.

I personally feel this proves my point that nerds get real vocal about what they love, even if the writers they love aren’t anywhere as popular as the writers normal people love. When it comes to shadow libraries being home to the things nerds love the most, your best bet of finding books normies love is by going to the Internet Archive and if you want to download something, use a special app to get those. Okay, Internet Archive doesn’t contain all the books normies love but still better than what you get with shadow libraries, well speaking from personal experience that is.

The Internet is home to things people can find for free, well in theory for other things since either you have to get a special app to get those at all or get it offline. I feel when it comes to finding nongeeky stuff, you’d have to look elsewhere if shadow libraries don’t always do it. Such is the nature of geeky people being too outspoken online.

What I hate about geek culture

Though technically I’m a geek in some regards, yet as I get older I get less involved in geeky fandoms and that geekdom’s prone to racism. It does get you banned in many forums, but if you observe the behaviour some people have on 4Chan, Reddit, Twitter and the like there are people who complain about how ugly black women are, speak ill of black characters, stereotype black characters as well-endowed even if not all black men are like this and some might be less than that and that outside of African countries, black cosplayers get flack for cosplaying as a character of another race.

Another problem with geek scenes in most countries, that is outside of Africa, is that there’s not much of a big interest in African animation and comics compared to the ones for Japan and to a lesser extent South Korea. It does get irksome that the cultures that loom big in most geek scenes, the ones that aren’t Western, tend to come from East Asia and it’s usually Japan. Japan may do a lot of comics but what can be said of the Philippines and India which also have comics industries and that Filipinos do work on US comics. Maybe to a lesser extent, perhaps much less than South Korea even though the Philippines and India are more Westernised than Japan and South Korea due to colonisation by the Spanish and British respectively.

A strange irony to consider, since many Filipinos and Indians speak English while not a lot of Japanese do but globally speaking geekdom orientates itself on Japan and to some extent South Korea that it’s more to do with fitting Orientalist expectations of the other whether if they’re aware of it or not. In this case, an Orientalist other that’s also idealised and romanticised by some people. It’s much likelier for a geek to be into Japanese comics and animation than they would with the Kenyan counterpart, even if the Kenyan counterpart might be just as interesting and amusing as anime and manga are.

(Even culturally closer as Kenya got colonised by Britain, so many Kenyans speak English which would give them a big advantage over most Japanese people.)

The tendency for much of geekdom to fixate on East Asia does gloss over what the rest of Asia has to offer, supposing if Indian comics and animation does exist it is worthy of international attention and interest the same way Japanese anime and manga do. But outside of India, it’s not that obsessed over by many geeks even if Bollywood films do have a following in the Middle East and Africa. Likewise, Philippine media doesn’t have a big international following outside of the diaspora and in Africa whereas Japanese media does among many geeks.

It’s got to do with being an exotic other that the Philippines, India and much of Africa lack which does tie with a form of racism that portrays some ethnicities as a model minority they can’t always live up to. So far from experience and what I’ve read, the Asian countries that loom largest in the geek imagination are Japan and South Korea with China coming in third when it comes to certain fantasy series. Philippine, Indian and Malaysian animation barely register in the geek imagination even if they’re just as interesting and that Elmer (a Philippine comic book) did get translated in French so it does have an international following.

But it’s not as big as the ones for Japanese comics, which again proves my point that geekdom orientates itself on East Asia when it comes to looking for a cultural other to fixate on. Especially if it’s not Britain, then it’s going to be Japan. So it’s safe and perhaps sad to say that geeks are more partial to Japan than they are to the Philippines and India. Another problem I have with geekdom’s the victim mentality, which not all geeks have. It’s like the stereotype of the athlete being the bully and the geek being the bullied, while there are cases in media where it’s inverted or flipped it’s still a popular stereotype enough for me to debunk.

Athletes do get bullied a lot, especially in youth sports and athletes also get abused especially they’re hazed, exploited or raped (the number of men being raped might be higher if hazing were to involve sexual abuse). If Britney Spears, David Beckham and Jenny McCarthy are any indication you don’t have to be a geek to be bullied and bullying also occurs among the less geeky professions of sports and medicine (especially nursing where it’s a widespread problem). Many bullies also get bullied themselves that they’re called bully-victims, so it’s not just geeks that get bullied.

If bullying and abuse does occur in less geeky professions such as medicine and sports, then it has to be considered but I don’t think not too many geeks ever consider this even though it’s a big problem enough to make it to both news reports and academia. Trust me, there are countless studies of nurses being bullied and abused in both hospitals and at school that’s worth considering and empathising with. This might be one of the worst aspects of geekdom I’ve ever encountered.

All the self-pity seems really immature to me, in the sense of being unable to realise other people have the same problem too. As I said before, the older I get the less involved in geek fandoms I get. It seems there’s something odious about geek culture that I have to get it off my chest, especially with regards to the racism and the self-pity that it has to stop. It could be me developing more empathy for people, but I do think geek culture’s really into its victim mentality for so long that it’s annoying.

I might as well be a lapsed geek, especially now that I don’t participate in fandom activities that much as I get older.