Different stories, basically same characters

[SimonDoom]

Yeah, that's right... I think it's inevitable. Maybe the correct thing to complain about is the lack of effort, instead of its result, because obviously a writer cannot be expected to become expert in things that don't pertain them. In the Big Bang Theory there is a lot of effort, for what concerns Physics, for example, while, say, in Star Trek there's much less. (I know that I'm going to regret this last example )

I'm a big Star Trek fan, but the "science" in the show was often pretty cheesy and low rent.

The "science" trope that drove me craziest in that show, even as a kid, was when Kirk was able to make robots short circuit/implode by feeding them illogical statements. It was a favorite Star Trek trick, popping up in several episodes. Even as a little kid with no computer/robotics experience I knew a robot that fizzled because of being fed illogical statements was the worst designed robot ever.

 

[A_Little_Show]

I have a nerd friend who hates Big Bang Theory because in her view it portrays nerds falsely.

I'm as nerdy as it is possible to get, and I loved "Big Bang Theory" even though I cringed at the laugh track and pacing. I've had the discussion many times with nerds and non nerds: Why do you dislike "Big Bang Theory".

In my experience, it comes down to whether you know Sheldon Cooper or not. His character seems over the top, but I know him. I know a guy almost exactly like Sheldon Cooper. Let's call him Mike. I had to stop playing board games with him because every game turned into lawyering about the rules. More endearingly, he felt compelled to correct everyone in the most pointlessly pedantic ways possible. He is unintentionally insulting to everybody. He is a physicist who followed a woman to Iceland only to find out when he approached her in a hotel lobby that she didn't even know who he was. He thought she was in love with hime.

This guy is brilliant and generally harmless. I enjoy(ed) time spent with him and accept(ed) him as is. When "Big Bang Theory" started, I seriously wondered if the producers or writers knew Mike.

I teach computer science, and the Rajesh Koothrappali character is only a slight exaggeration of some of my students. I have students who share character traits with the Bernadette character. I can't say I know anyone reminiscent of Leonard Hofstadter or Howard Wolowitz though.

I also hear complaints that the character, Penny, would never end up with Leonard. Some of my friends and colleagues dismiss the show just because of that. But here is the thing: In my experience, theater people are among the most accepting and tolerant people anywhere. I think it could happen.

 

[A_Little_Show]

Joke

What's the difference between an extroverted Engineer and an introverted engineer?

The extroverted Engineer looks at YOUR shoes while he talks to you.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

What's the difference between an extroverted Engineer and an introverted engineer?

The extroverted Engineer looks at YOUR shoes while he talks to you.

That, for real, made me laugh out loud. thx.

 

[Voboy]

I'm a geek, not a nerd.

I can't get along with nerds. And almost every engineer I've ever known has a brain that clashes with mine, hard. Some of that must be nature, but a lot is nurture: engineers are trained in certain habits of mind that I just can't comprehend.

It was a problem in the Army when dealing with West Pointers. Not all of them are engineers anymore, but it's a school with a very strong engineering tradition. Most of them emerge with a way of solving problems that I found impossible to cope with.

 

[bushyTrail]

What's the difference between an extroverted Engineer and an introverted engineer?

The extroverted Engineer looks at YOUR shoes while he talks to you.

Yeah, I loved it too!

 

[A_Little_Show]

I'm a geek, not a nerd.

I can't get along with nerds. And almost every engineer I've ever known has a brain that clashes with mine, hard. Some of that must be nature, but a lot is nurture: engineers are trained in certain habits of mind that I just can't comprehend.

It was a problem in the Army when dealing with West Pointers. Not all of them are engineers anymore, but it's a school with a very strong engineering tradition. Most of them emerge with a way of solving problems that I found impossible to cope with.

So, if I understand correctly, a "Geek" is a person generally living at the margins of society like circus performers, carnies, hermits, and avant guard artists. In that context, a geek is likely to have a flexibility of mind that accounts for "outside the box" thinking.

A "Nerd" is a person who is so focussed on a narrow interest(s) that the nerd has difficulty relating with people who take more generalist approaches and visa versa. There are comic book nerds and engineering nerds that we normally associate with the term. There are also theater nerds, policy nerds (wonks), art nerds, car nerds, pilot nerds, cross stitch nerds, quilting nerds, etc. We associate nerds with their interests.

If we accept the above definitions, I am definitely a nerd and am often in the company of geeks.

 

[Voboy]

So, if I understand correctly, a "Geek" is a person generally living at the margins of society like circus performers, carnies, hermits, and avant guard artists. In that context, a geek is likely to have a flexibility of mind that accounts for "outside the box" thinking.

A "Nerd" is a person who is so focussed on a narrow interest(s) that the nerd has difficulty relating with people who take more generalist approaches and visa versa. There are comic book nerds and engineering nerds that we normally associate with the term. There are also theater nerds, policy nerds (wonks), art nerds, car nerds, pilot nerds, cross stitch nerds, quilting nerds, etc. We associate nerds with their interests.

If we accept the above definitions, I am definitely a nerd and am often in the company of geeks.

I define it somewhat like this.

A geek gets really fascinated by weird things, delves into those weird things, finds out a lot of stuff about those weird things, and tries to sneak that stuff into conversations whenever possible, normally to his social detriment.

A nerd is the same, but in fewer and more useful areas. Often, they’re STEM-related; if so, they can usually parlay their nerdishness into a tidy sum. A geek is less likely to be able to do this because his interests are weirder. A nerd doesn’t try as hard to bring his interests into conversation, largely because he finds conversation to be a waste of time more often than not.

Nerds tend, in my experience, to be linear thinkers. This is good in some fields, bad in others. I find they make poor teachers, for example, because they have difficulty understanding why students don’t grasp what they’re into.

 

[Athalia]

Robert A. Heinlein is famous for only having one character throughout all of his books. Some people say the female characters are patterned on Heinlein's wife, but to me, they are still the same character. The women in his books think and behave just like the men from sexual predilections to economic theories to crisis resolution. IMHO, absolutely everyone in every Heinline story has an identical personality and world view.

Male characters, too. They're pretty much interchangeable. I could never see much difference in them.

As others have pointed out, some writers have built their reputations on going to stock characters and just changing the names and settings. Barbara Cartland was probably the queen of that genre.

And I think that somebody else mentioned Tom Clancy, who populated his early books with soldier-engineers who could do no wrong.

But to return to the OP's comment, I see nothing wrong with using a sort of stock character in the kind of fiction we write, as long as it doesn't distract from the story unduly, It's only a problem when a reader says, "Hey, I've read that story before."

 

[ElectricBlue]

I have a nerd friend who hates Big Bang Theory because in her view it portrays nerds falsely.

Janey looked up, and took off her glasses. "EB likes them," she said, "and that's good enough for me."

Carry on .

 

[Hypoxia]

I try to populate my fictions with 1) fragments of people I think I know, 2) folks I invent, and 3) a little of myself, unavoidably.

1. I think I know more than one man and one woman, so I have more models to work with.
2. I may borrow from sketchy cartoon characters. Not everyone need be fleshed-out.
3. Or I may try an 'anti-me', someone other than who I have ever been or can ever be.

Some of those players may appear in varied works under varied (or similar) names. I can gift players with any personalities I wish, insert them wherever I want, twist them around, whatever. These are the universes I construct.