If you'd like to be a 'toon instead of a manga character, Tori Siegel can help you out. It's not free, but it's very cheap and her work is fun. You can also get print editions for a reasonable price, something you can't get from the icon program I've been using. It's also more personalized than the Chinese menu method of constructing your persona. I love toons of all kinds, so this really appeals to me. But I've grown very attached in the last week or so to my manga personas, as you can probably tell if you've been checking back here through the week, so I'm going to stick to these, at least for now.
Despite my fascination with 'toons and comics (comics especially), I've never been a huge collector and I've never gotten into manga, which is kind of shocking, really. I collected when I was a kid (Conan the Barbarian and, of course, all the original Star Wars comics), but the only one I've kept is the Star Wars collection, and I haven't gone full tilt boogie into getting the Dark Horse ones, either. I've got about a dozen I need to round out my old Marvel collection and may actually have to take a trip to a comics con to finish it up. This horrifies me. I would like to have a complete set but I'm not sure I can stand all the geekiness.
I should probably just give in to my Inner Geek and get over it, but there's this huge element of shame in it that's hard to overcome. Witness the Geek Flow Chart. And Paul Ford's F-Train essay on Geekiness, called "Gallivespians," a title you won't understand unless you're a fantasy fan. Part of this shame stems from pure snobbery: the artificial divisions between "high" and "low" art, between art and illustration or art and craft, between people who know and and people who don't. This is why I was glad to see Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics and Reinventing Comics get such good reviews in the mainstream (or "mundane" as they're known to fangeeks) press, and why it's nice to "graphic novels" gaining legitimacy. As is true of any art form, there's always someone doing something to push the boundaries: George Herriman's Krazy Kat, Winsor McCay's Little Nemo in Slumberland, Walt Kelly's Pogo, Doonsbury, Calvin & Hobbes, The Far Side, The Boondocks. And of course, Art Spiegelman's Maus.
Science fiction and fantasy get lumped into the geek category and looked down on even more than romance novels or "chicklit" (of course, any writing that women do or like is obviously inferior to literature, which is just as obviously a masculine pursuit; see me rolling my eyes? But that's a whole different soap box.). SF&F is only now, in the guise of speculative fiction, getting any respect at all. It's true that's much of what's written and published in the genres is crap, but that's true of books in general. SF suffers from its prior association with the pulp genre and its formula of BEMs and BBBs (Bug-Eyed Monsters and Big-Breasted Bimbos), although even some of the early stories transcended thatearly Ray Bradbury, for instance, not to mention H.G. Wells, Aldous Huxley, and George Orwell. Fantasy, likewise, from its association with fairy tales (too childish for adult reading; see below) and with the early Sword and Sorcery pulp of Robert E. Howard and the crossover SF sword and technology of Edgar Rice Burroughs Mars books. Even Tolkien wasn't very respectable for quite a long time.
The fear of the fantastic is something Tolkien himself addressed in his essay "Beowulf: The Monster and the Critics" which appears in an unredacted and extended version as Beowulf and the Critics and in "On Fairy Stories" in the same collection. Ursula K. LeGuin deals with it too in her book of criticism, The Language of the Night. Realism, apparently, is the only fit subject for adult minds to bother with. This strikes me as fearing that the monsters under the bed might actually become real if you continue to pay attention to them. There's also a sense that stories that don't deal with "real" life are somehow childish in and of themselves, rather than often extremely sophisticated, as Joseph Campbell and Burno Bettheim have pointed out.
Personally, what I love about this particular genre and its associate fringe and marginalized forms is the freedom it gives you to poke fun or reexamine at reality without necessarily being didactic about it. Some of the best science fiction, or spec fic, and fantasy is also some of the best social criticism: LeGuin's The Dispossessed, the first three volumes of Frank Herbert's Dune series, Sherri Tepper's Grass and The Gate to Women's Country, almost anything Octavia Butler and Samuel Delaney have written. Some of the urban and dark fantasy coming out now is really presenting a somewhat distorted mirror of reality or pointing out the undercurrents of myth in it. I'm thinking especially of China Mieville, Iain Banks, Charles DeLint, and Emma Bull. They're like the darkest of the Grimm Fairy Tales. Not everything results in happily ever after, just like life.
Part of the shame of being a geek is based on the fact that so much of what geeks like appeals to disaffected, marginalized young people. Among them, there are two kinds of geeks: the doers and the fans. They often intersect and certainly cross-pollinate and definitely get lumped in together with each other. In the hierarchy, though, the geek fans are probably responsible for more bad press. It's one of those true cliches that a lot of geeks lack social skills, even after they reach adulthood, and that's what gives the rest of us a bad name. Bad hygiene is not helping the rest of us out, folks.
That said, there's an almost atavistic fear of being thought childish among adults. Being told to "Grow up!" is a major insult. I remember how horrified my mother was when I announced in junior high that I wanted to write for Marvel Comics. That wasn't an adult enough job. It's much cooler and more "adult" now to be an animator than it was in, say, the early days of Disney or Warner Bros. (Pinky! Pinky! Pinky!) because at least there's cool grown-up technology involved now. It's okay, too, if that geeky programmer kid in the garage turns out to be Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Enough money will buy your way, if not necessarily into the mainstream, then into its grudging respect. Bill and Steve will always be geeks, but they're freaking rich geeks, so that's okay.
Tied up with that is also the sense that jobs are not supposed to be fun. Work does not equal fun. Work is work. Fun is what you do on the weekend. And in that sense, I think part of the scorn for geeks is mixed up with a lot of envy. Geeks usually really like their jobs, computer geeks and animators and cartoonists especially. But the same is true of writers and artists. And in this country at least, you're not doing serious work, real work, adult work, unless you're (a) making a buttload of money and/or (b) hate your job. Even a menial service job is seen as more serious than being a comic book artist, although the money is not all that different. Why is flipping burgers "better" than tooning?
There's also the uncomfortable element of obsessiveness, which is somehow perfectly acceptable in someone who collects "art" but not in someone who collects comics. Even baseball cards are more acceptable because there's clearly so much money in them and baseball is a jock thing. And if you're obsessive about making comics or cartoons, or writing comics or cartoons rather than, for instance, designing new toasters, that's just weird. Artists are all a little obsessive anyway, but because their work is seen as less important, by and large, than manufacturing consumer goods, their obsessiveness is just self-indulgent rather than profitable.
At least that's what Manga Girl thinks. 