(no subject)

[brushwolf]

I think the reason "mad scientists" have such an appeal as a concept is the idea of drama as life with the dull bits taken out. In real life, the scientist figures out a chunk of the universe or the engineer figures out a gadget, and regardless of any psych issues they might have (usually things like depression, bipolar disorder, or gender dysphoria rather than some type of world-threatening narcissism), the people who create a real danger with the stuff are governments, militaries, and corporations. This isn't as dramatic as someone figuring out a chunk of the universe and gadgetry all at once and promptly going on a rampage in their newly minted power armor, presumably for more dramatic results than paying for more Adderal or making rent on an okay apartment. The closest there's ever been to a mad scientist who endangered the world is what, Oppenheimer? Werner von Braun? That dude who "proved" white males had the largest brain capacity by unconsciously fudging his data, back in the 1800s (that resulted in a fair amount of evil, no)?

I mention this because there's a series of ads for Verizon which are all over the BART stations which bug me. Not a big "bug me" but it's there.

One of those ads has the tagline "If mad scientists can endanger the world, nice scientists can save it." Mad scientists exist in comic books, not real life.

Another comic themed one is "With great IQ comes great responsibility." This presses my buttons, having spent childhood as a Smart Kid, and therefore responsible for learning everything without much help, or being required to be a genius on command. I'm bitter about this.

Another one has the tagline "When you believe more, you sleep less." I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

Comments

Hmm...

[ysabetwordsmith]

I think you have elegantly pointed out a plot complication and character dynamic that is under-utilized. The closest we get is the nice-but-naive scientist whose work is actively hijacked by the military.

I suspect the more common version is what's seen in some versions of the Incredible Hulk: a fairly ordinary scientist finds something with ramifications way beyond the expected -- and yeah, science will do that to you sometimes -- then a scuffle breaks out over control of the results and people get hurt.

Lots of room to explore motifs and plot arcs that haven't gotten much traffic. I always love finding that kind of stuff.

Re: Hmm...

[brushwolf]

I think it's again a drama thing.

I mean pretty much the most tragic innovation is basically a brilliant one. One internal combustion engine is a scientific/engineering fete; a network of IC engine driven transport is an engineering and social science achievement; nations of people all wanting IC engines to get places because it's really great to have that, but it means creating mass climate change and all the problems made by oil dependence, and boom, it's a tragedy. This wasn't some insidious plan by Daimler to destroy the planet or whatever. I think this sort of ongoing disempowerment creates an emotional need for catharsis.

I think by contrast the development of nuclear power really established the idea of the scientist, rather than the priest or the general or the politician, as a new archetype of villain and that coincided with a huge explosion in mass media.

I think the parallel would be business types and how they are handled in media, where an individual businessman is actually somewhat limited in the scope of villainy or heroism he can achieve, but drama points people to cut things down to an individual level. Lex Luthor, Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark and Norman Osborne all basically do whatever the hell they want, regardless of huge layers of control exerted by investors or other corporate officers, because it makes the story work; I'd argue that we tell basically the same stories when we're talking about, say, Jeff Bezos or Larry Ellison. Okay, so Ellison owns his own island which sort of makes him a fictional supervillain, but you get the idea no?