Editorial: Changing Definitons of Geek
the new feel of Milgeek

by the ed.

It's fair to say that Militant Geek has changed a bit between issue 2 and issue 3. While we are still quite proud of our previous issues, they tended to focus on more high school-oriented issues, and of fairly narrow definitions of "geek." That legendary i2 editorial that never got written about classifications and geek solidarity would have addressed some of these questions, but existing as it does purely in the realm of the legendary, it isn't much help.

What we are hoping to promote for future issues of MilGeek (until we change our minds again, of course) is a more inclusive and simpler definition of geek. Whereas "Geek Philosophy" might have previously included musings on what it's like to be an outsider or to like math, what we have now are more broad pieces of cultural criticism and literary/political theory. Whereas "Geek Culture" before would have been fond retrospectives on video games, sci-fi movies, etc., now we have fiction, experiemental pieces, and more interviews.

Political theorist G. A. Cohen says his life has been devoted to fighting against "bullshit" (which he defines fairly specifically; see the new introduction to his Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defense (2000 edition) for a full explanation) and we at MilGeek feel a certain kinship with that sentiment. While we would certainly not pretend to be as thorough and insightful as Mr. Cohen, we do like to think the exposing of "bullshit" in all its forms is a noble goal. Thus, from now on we would like to try something a little more intelligent, a little more theoretical.

We do want to keep the same style--God forbid we lose our sense of humor!--and would certainly love to publish more restrospectives on "geek culture" etc. (especially if you write them and submit them, hint hint) we're going to try to devote our efforts to something a little more, er, respectable. God forbid again. We're still proud of our two previous issues, and indeed urge you to read the archives.

But we're also quite proud of our current issue. First up is the admittedly lengthy--but deservedly so--treatise proposing one solution for the breakdown of our current electoral system, and we would encourage all readers to not only give it a good look, but also to comment on it. We hope to start something with this. Starting something of a different kind is "On Modern Writing," and this deserves close attention, too, from all writers. Then there's some pieces that aren't such a big deal. Oh, except the modern art one. That's pretty cool just because it's so very, very wrong.

The culture section is great. We can say that with full confidence. The Myla Goldberg review is inspiring and informative, "My Drug Quiz Show Story" is both a good piece and a charming paeon to geekdom, and the rest are just the kind of weird, humorous stuff we'd like to see. Especially the Curious George thing. Goddamn. Apologies to readers who have been familiar with this particular piece for some time, though.

And finally, letters [not actually compiled at present--they're coming] which were quite inspiring as a result of our last issue. These were heartfelt, argumentative, and surprising, especially the two e-mails from relatives of Lance Landers, the subject of an i2 article. Thank you, everyone. Write more!

That's all for now. Pictures will be up soon, I swear.