It having come to my attention that there is some confusion over the subject, I have taken it upon myself to compile this Spotter’s Guide to the North American Loser. The following is the result of several years of work, observing the loser in its natural habitat: comic book conventions, gaming stores, and a variety of parent’s garages. This has been at no small risk to myself, if I may say so. At a sci-fi convention in San Diego, I was observing a dominance challenge between two subspecies of geek, the bearded Star Wars fan (Geekus Lucas) and the spotted Trekkie (Geekus Kirkus). In my excitement at observing this rare encounter, I approached too closely, and received a severe concussion when I was inadvertently caught up in their slap-fight.
At any rate, the following is just the rough outline of my forthcoming, definitive volume on the subject. It does not discriminate past the genus of the subject, and does not include extinct species, such as the New England Melvin (although it has come to my attention that the Melvin’s close cousin, the Anorak-Clad Nigel, still flourishes in parts of Britain) I also intend to examine some of the genuine scientific mysteries of the loser, such as how they can have such a flourishing population despite the species’ apparent total inability to breed. I hope this Spotter’s Guide will be an invaluable aid in other like-minded enthusiasts of Loser-watching.
Begin by observing your subject. Is it bathed, well-dressed, or otherwise properly groomed?
if NO, go to question 2
if YES, subject is not a loser.
Is subject fancifully dressed?
if NO, go to question 3
if YES, go to question 4
Observe how your subject interacts with others. Although a lack of social graces is a given, does the subject display detailed, specialized knowledge that could lead to a well-paying job?
if NO, go to question 6
if YES, subject is a nerd
Is subject dressed as a character from a fantasy or science fiction TV show or movie?
if NO, go to question 5
if YES, subject is a fanboy/girl
Is subject dressed as a vampire?
if NO, subject is a weirdo
if YES, subject is a freak
Does subject display detailed, specialized knowledge that will never, ever be of any use outside of Dr. Who trivia matches?
if NO, go to question 7
if YES, subject is a geek
Does subject’s total lack of social skills alienate everyone subject meets?
if NO, go to question 8
if YES, subject is a spaz
Does subject unsuccessfully emulate cooler people?
if NO, go to question 9
if YES, subject is a poser
Does subject unsuccessfully emulate other losers?
if NO, go to question 9
if YES, subject is a wannabe
Does subject get easily offended over trivial matters, e.g. this Spotter’s Guide?
if NO, subject is an undifferentiated dork
if YES, subject is a nimrod
How many times do I have to tell you that that cutout isn’t life-size, lno? It’s clearly two inches too short. Don’t make me get my boyfriend (No, you haven’t met him; he lives in Canada.) to beat you up.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I understand that there’s a sale on dice and Star Trek miniatures down at the Danger Room.
Isn’t the proper nomenclature for taxonomic names to have a capitalized letter on the first name and non-capitalized letter on the second name (it would read Geekus kirkus/Geekus lucas)? Or Am I just being anal retentive again?
So the OP contains a self defense clause - an item that states that no one is allowed to object to its content or else they will be called a bad name. How ingenious!
Indeed. But Miller’s taxonomic transgressions go beyond mere violation of capitalization rules. As named, the subjects are separate species, not subspecies. Given the descriptions of the geeks in question, I would speculate that both are, indeed, subspecies of the Sci-Fi Geek, and that Miller was simply mistaken as to their proper specific/subspecific classification.
The above would, of course, given my current state of dress and the fact that I am not paid to know such things, place me firmly within the Geekus genus, as well.
Does subject type ‘go to question 9’ thereby creating a pointless self-referential loop instead of ‘go to question 10’ ?
If yes, subject is an incompetent typist and failed satirist, as well as a dunkwit smart-ass keen to advertise the fact that he is a whole lot dumber than any of the people he takes swipes at.
Some of us had a laugh, and some of us got a little offended.
I’m sure Miller didn’t mean a lot of harm, but stereotypes can be a slippery slope, as we can see. Yeah, it was written with humour.
But let’s end it here - rather than move a thread Miller clearly didn’t intent to be in the Pit, I’ll just close it, and I hope it serves as an example that both stereotyping people, and taking offense too easily are things we prefer not to see on our boards.