Don't Be a Snob: Living a Happier Life by Allowing Yourself to Like Things

This entry is somewhat influenced by a Vlog by Christopher Bingham titled 'You Will Love Boring Things'. He speaks primarily to any young people approaching their twenties about what to expect in adulthood, and the first point he makes, 'All genres of music can be good', is one that I wasn't really aware that I agreed with until he said it. So I'm going to share a few things with you, in the hopes that I can get across the general idea of what I want to talk about today.

I'm an English graduate, and I'm currently reading Dracula, but I'm also following the Ultimate Spider-Man comic series, and I plan at some point to give Dan Brown a try. I like Beethoven, and Los Campesinos, and Eminem, and Beyoncé. Among my favourite films are WALL-E, Shaun of the Dead, and Deathproof. I like Breaking Bad, and I also like How I Met Your Mother, Friends, and Ed Edd n Eddy.

Now I don't claim to have the most refined tastes, or the most eclectic tastes, or even the most original tastes, I just have my tastes. And I'm still surprised that it took me so long to allow myself not only to tell people I liked these things, but just to like them in the first place. I thought that because I grew up playing violin, and studying English, and later getting into writing, that I was only allowed to like certain things, and had dismiss others. I thought that because classical music was good, rap was inherently not good, and so on, even though 'The Real Slim Shady' would play on an infinite loop for about three years of my young teenage life. I want to say now that I was, and by extension anybody who thinks that way now is, an idiot. By liking one thing you aren't suddenly blocked off from liking certain other things and it's ridiculous to think that you are. Some rap is bad, some is good, some classical music is good, and some is bad. Or, maybe it's all subjectively good in some capacity, you just might not like all of it. That happens. Believe it or not.

For some of you this all might sound obvious, and I can only say that you people are wiser than I was. But now I've found that I'm just that little bit happier for letting go of my own snobbery. I listen to what I want, read what I want, watch what I want, and it's less about ignoring what other people think of it, and more about ignoring what I think of it. Having a naturally analytical mind which I made worse by studying English, I have a tendency to overthink why I like something, and what it might say about me as a consumer, as a writer, as a person. Lately I'm trying to just accept that I like something because I like it, and force my brain to be satisfied with that kind of cyclical logic. Because what's the point of feeling guilty about liking something when there are plenty of legitimate things to feel guilty about instead?

To sum up, let me tell you about a conversation I had with my dad last December. He asked me why I liked a certain song, and after some thought I could only say 'it sounds good in my ears' which as an English graduate I have to say is an awful analysis. But it was true. Don't deny the music that sounds good in your ears just because 'people like you' shouldn't like it, because guess what. You do.

If You Don't Like it, Don't Read It: Why This Dismissive Attitude isn't Good Enough

True, the if-you-don't-like-it-etc. argument does hold water when there is a particular genre or medium that you know with a fair amount of confidence you don't like at all. Then I think it's safe to say that that's a road not worth venturing, unless you crave being let down. But it's often used as a hand-wave to dismiss possibly valid criticisms by making the critic, however fair they might be, seem petty and argumentative. Even worse, it can be used to excuse questionable or just offensive material by telling the offended party that they can just not look at it. The implications are pretty self-explanatory but, and not to put too fine a point on it, that's basically like telling a murder witness that it's their fault they're appalled by the crime and if they don't like it they shouldn't have watched.

The funny thing about media is that it's public. I know, mind-blowing. It's available to be seen by everyone, and therefore potentially criticised by everyone. If a person thinks that a piece of work is offensive, or potentially damaging, they have the right to speak up about it, and they shouldn't be patronised for it. I'm not saying their argument is inherently correct just because they are offended—in fact I pretty much consistently believe the opposite—instead I'm saying that their voice should be heard, and their views treated as a jumping-off point for discussion, not just a whinge and a moan which could have been avoided if they'd covered their eyes and stuck their fingers in their ears.

Now this isn't supposed to be some kind of warning against content creators, advising them to be careful not to offend anybody, because censoring media—or worse, I suppose pre-censoring it, if I can make up a term, by creating something 'safe' and 'harmless' in the hopes that it won't cause offence to anybody—is, at the risk of sounding ineloquent, absolute bullshit. Some of the best works are considered offensive by someone, because often in order to make something exceptional you need to take certain risks, like being called misogynist, or insensitive, or a colossal buffoon. All I'm really saying is that when people get offended, and they will, creators just have to have the balls to take the credit for it. I know I'll certainly try my best.

Geeks and Nerds: My Say

Over the past six months or so I have come across some alarmingly heated discussions about 'real' nerds and 'fake' nerds. Being a nerd or a geek used to be something to be ashamed of, at least it seemed to be when I was younger, if television and my personal experience was anything to go by. But over time something wonderful happened; it became first okay, then acceptable, and then cool, to be a nerd and to express it openly, especially on the internet, but eventually in public too. It was a time of liberation, of freedom of expression for the things one holds close to their heart but previously felt too embarrassed to admit it.

Nobody has the authority to judge who is a real nerd and who is not, just as nobody has the authority to judge who is a real person. This is the simple truth of the matter; there is no scale, no meter, no true way to measure what makes a nerd 'true' or 'fake'. This is because there is no such thing as a geek or a nerd. At least, I don't think there is, not anymore. I would say there is no longer any definition of 'nerd' or 'geek', but really, there never was a wholly undisputed definition at all. Wikipedia defines a nerd as:

a person [who is] intellectual, obsessive, or socially impaired. They may spend inordinate amounts of time on unpopular, obscure, or non-mainstream activities, [...] generally either highly technical or relating to topics of fiction or fantasy [...] many nerds are described as being shy, quirky, and unattractive, and may have difficulty participating in, or even following, sports.¹

And it defines geeks as:

odd or non-mainstream people, with different connotations ranging from "a computer expert or enthusiast" to "a person heavily interested in a hobby", with a general pejorative meaning of "a peculiar or otherwise dislikable person, esp[ecially] one who is perceived to be overly intellectual".²

TV Tropes defines a nerd as:

someone who... actually, it is easier to describe a nerd as what they are not. Not smooth, not handsome, and not [...] 'attractive'. Not, above all else, popular outside a very narrow grouping of fellow-nerds³

And it cannot define geek, instead giving us the original meaning of the word:

an old Carny term for a species of sideshow performer: a specialist in the art of eating disgusting things [...] Biting off the heads of live chickens was the classic play.⁴

Oxford Dictionaries Online defines a nerd as:

[1] a foolish or contemptible person who lacks social skills or is boringly studious
[2] a single-minded expert in a particular technical field⁵

And it defines a geek as:

[1] an unfashionable or socially inept person.
[2] [usually with modifier] a knowledgeable and obsessive enthusiast⁶

While the Oxford Essential English Dictionary (the only non-digital dictionary to hand) has no definition of 'nerd' or 'geek' at all, which only helps to further illustrate the point. Although the definitions are all different, certain words and phrases keep coming up when defining both nerds and geeks: 'intellectual', 'obsessive', 'non-mainstream', 'unlikeable', 'socially inept', 'specialist'. This all makes for a very vague concept. By this combined definition you could use the word 'nerd' to describe almost anybody. Suppose a man watches a lot of football. He will stay at home or record every game his team plays, and will become violently angry should one spoil the game by telling him the score. He follows specific players, knows how many goals they scored last year, and has very strong opinions about how his team is managed. He might be called a football fan, or one may be so bold as to use the word fanatic, but most would not consider him a nerd, despite the fact that the only thing separating him from nerds in the traditional sense is the object of his obsession.

So tradition plays a big role in what one considers a 'true' nerd. However this argument falls flat, because if someone wears a T-shirt without knowing anything about the fandom said T-shirt is referencing, they are still technically a 'nerd' in the traditional sense providing they are socially inept, intelligent, or some kind of specialist. Then, consider the word that came up for both 'nerd' and 'geek': 'non-mainstream'. With the dramatic rise in superhero movies based on comics, the insanely popular sitcom The Big Bang Theory, and the Star Wars films being almost universally adored, can one really call comics, science fiction, and fantasy non-mainstream? Now, in the twenty-first century, the non-mainstream has become the mainstream. So by these traditional definitions of 'geek' and 'nerd' everybody is a geek, and at the same time, nobody is. Nobody is a 'fake' nerd because there is no such thing as a 'true' nerd anymore. Is this not an exciting time? Society is beginning to see a more varied mainstream, filled to bursting with intellectual comedy, guilty pleasures, comics and comic adaptations, science fiction, fantasy, and many more varied and bizarre forms of entertainment. When a person enjoys something it is no longer a source of shame, because you know that no matter how dreadful or 'specialised' it is there will be throngs of fans posting gifs of it on Tumblr for evermore. It is liberating and exhilarating to be able to stand up and declare one's love for something without feeling embarrassed or fearful of judgement.

With any luck, those out there who declare themselves 'true' nerds will cease their judgement of others, as they are no more true in their nerdiness than anybody else. Everybody is simply a person, with their own special interests and obsessions, in a world that is beginning to accept them for it, and that is beautiful. That's my take on it, anyway.

1 Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerd> [accessed 15th November 2012]

2 Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek> [accessed 15th November 2012]

3 TV Tropes <http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Nerd> [accessed 15th November 2012]

4 TV Tropes <http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Geek> [accessed 15th November 2012]

5 Oxford Dictionaries <http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nerd?q=nerd> [accessed 15th November 2012]

6 Oxford Dictionaries <http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/geek?q=geek> [accessed 15th November 2012]