In a recent episode of Bones, Cam was much exercised about her daughter, Michelle, who’s about to go to university. Michelle, we are given to understand is an academic hot-shot, red-hot brainy and uber-bright and should, therefore, be a prime candidate for seriously academic universities such as John Hopkins.
The trouble is that the aforesaid academic hot-shot, red-hot brainy, uber-bright Michelle doesn’t want to go to John Hopkins or any of the other uni’s that Cam’s chosen. She wants to apply to a much lower-grade university at the far end of nowhere because her boyfriend is going there.
This all rang lots of bells with me, because daughter Lucy is in the middle of choosing a university. And, being bright, she hasn’t lost sleep about where her boyfriend’s going, she concentrating on the courses being offered. The writers of Bones set it up as conflict between Cam’s ambitions and Michelle’s desires, with a touchy-feely ending where Michelle, as she’s an academic hot-shot etc., etc., is bound to make the right decision and all Cam has to do is trust her. Fluffy fade-out.
Yeah, right. Seriously intelligent people can make bad mistakes and going to a duff uni is one of them. I think the trouble is, that the writers didn’t seem to have any real idea of what being dead bright is actually like. We’re not told how Michelle’s intelligence manifests itself, for instance. Is she entranced by language, fascinated by physics, haunted by history, bewitched by biology? No, she’s just Bright. About everything? Well, that can certainly happen, therefore the poor kid should have gone through hoops trying to decide what to study. Does she ever say words to the effect of, “If I go to X uni, I can study with Professor Y. S/he’s written the book about earthworms, is this close to finding the composition of a black hole, knows more about the Georgians than anyone else,” or whatever? No.
It’s a pity, especially on a series like Bones which centres round a very bright scientist, (Ms) Temperance (Bones) Brennan and her cohorts at the Jefferson. But Temperance Brennan, though nice, is seriously odd. There’s a lot of fun in Bones with her Mr Spock-like literal approach to social situations which I thoroughly enjoy. But nobody would want to be Bones, she’s so socially inept. Because, you can dress it up however you like, there’s still this idea in popular TV that very intelligent people (women especially) are somehow strange. Popular TV can really make a difference to teenagers, providing a powerful role model that might be lacking at home. So can’t it be cool to be clever? And do the clever kids have to be dorks? Perhaps, as it makes us dumb types watching feel better about being dumb. But I, for one, could get over it. And I’m sure you could too.
Have you seen The Big Bang Theory as well? Although the original characters are all male scientists and follow your comments about being dorks to the limit, there is now a female character in the same vein, who comes out with some frightening lines! The only glamorous girl in it is the waitress neighbour!
ReplyDeleteWhilst I think of it as well - Glee, what is that all about? I feel very old!
Funnily enough, Carol, I thought about including the Big Bang Theory as an example of what I was talking about. It is funny, and I don't want to be a grouch, but the only normal character in it is the waitress, who's not tarred with the very dubious brush of being clever. It's a really odd prejudice, isn't it? My point was that if you're a bright teenager, you'd be hard-pressed to find role models on TV of bright, normal people. Most teenagers would die the death rather than be thought different from their contempories.
ReplyDeleteGlee? I quite like it, but the track-suited teacher is hugely scarey and there's a bit too much feel-good easy emotion sloshing around for my tastes. (ie, everything's all right if you say it's all right.) The picture of American high schools on TV is very odd, isn't it? They're either chasing vampires or hoofing around in a singing chorus!
"there’s still this idea in popular TV that very intelligent people (women especially) are somehow strange."
ReplyDeleteAll the odder given how many very bright 'real' women grace our TV screens in down to earth roles - Vanessa Feltz, Carol Vorderman to name but two. It's also sad that scientists are still portrayed as dorks in the 21st century (though some of us undoubtedly are...). Again, there's enough capable and presentable young men and women presenting science programmes. Look at Brian Cox (any excuse!).
Yes, the way real scientists are shown in documentaries has come on an awful lot. I remember back in the 1970's, any TV scientist was also, practically without exception, wierdly eccentric. I think the big change came with David Attenborough's Life On Earth. He who looked so completely normal and was so engaging, it was a real breakthrough in science presentation.
ReplyDelete