Wednesdays? Whatever. Whatever!

One of the other hats I wear is that of a semi-professional writer. Some of the stream-of-consciousness blather that gets posted here might cause readers to doubt that assertion, but nevertheless I do get part of my paycheque from mashing words into paragraphs. Of course one rarely falls into that kind of role if one does not have “the itch” — that nagging, yearning, urge that any artist will quickly tell anyone within earshot is the driving force behind his work — for which neither salve nor ointment can sooth the need to share one’s gift (whatever that may be) with an audience that is often silent and unseen. I write what I need to write — and I get paid. I write what I want to write — and blogs are brimming with opinion, notebooks are overflowing with fanciful descriptions, and ideas are etched out in countless word processor files — yet not a dime ever arrives. In sharing this I’m not trying to offer some round-about guilt-trip for reading these words. Rather, I’m attempting to introduce my motivation (as a passionate writer) in elaborating on a recent podcast discussion (from The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe) about stereotyped characters in children’s media, particularly with regard to so-called “nerds” and “geeks.”

The Summary

The hosts and company of everyone’s favorite weekly skeptical podcast were recently discussing the perception of girls in science. I am on the fringes of science, though I am not a girl. But I do have a daughter so the discussion was of some interest to me. The assertion is that (unfortunately) there are far too many two dimensional characters in adolescent-focused media who fill the stereotyped role of “science nerd” or “lab geek” particularly if that character is a girl. One can fairly imagine the examples of this; There is of course the dowdy, mousy, introverted teenager with a deeper interest in chemistry than cute. Or, it might be the thick-lensed girl with pigtails who cares more about astronomy than astrology.

The Complaint

Obviously, in a fair and balanced world of entertainment media the attractive blond who is dating the high school quarterback would be just as likely to know her way around a Bunsen burner — but it is rarely the case. If we expect any of our kids to take science and critical thinking seriously, there is most clearly an obstacle in the world of television, media, and literature.

The Bigger Problem

Media is unlikely to listen. This is not a gripe about any particular corporation. It has more to do with a few identifiable factors:

(a) Media is an abstraction of culture and society. Yes, it is possible for good media to ride the metaphorical crest of the cultural wave and shape societal opinion. But for every innovative, stereotype-shattering program there seems to be twenty-five that are average and coasting on what we as society think we already know.

(b) Writers can be lazy. And this has more to do with what can be thought of as “stock literature.” For example, if the main character is a young, teenage rock star with a “heart of gold” there will be deliberate efforts to flesh out the details of that character. Background or secondary characters are “stock”, “extras”, or “filler” that are based on stereotypes for the simple reason is that the audience needs little explanation to understand who or what that character represents.

(c) Writers can be very lazy. And, if readers are asking “why then not make the MAIN character interesting and geeky?” then the answer to that is main characters are often stock characters also. Excepting in rare cases of innovative and well-written stories, even main characters are extracted from the cultural psyche an built around a stereotyped framework that can be understood with little explanation.

What Can Be Done?

Other than supporting media in all forms that break the mold of two dimensional characters, helping kids choose media that is more than simple re-enforcement of those constructs, and maybe putting pen to paper ourselves… I don’t know. Thoughts?