The Essential Engineer by Henry Petroski

Petroski, Henry. The Essential Engineer: Why Science Alone Will Not Solve Our Global Problems. New York: Vintage, 2010.

Policy makers seem to love science. I can see why. Science provides a sense of specificity, certainty and consensus. It contrasts with the vagueness, variability and competition that policy makers usually have to deal with. That is more like the world engineering.

This interrelation of policy-making, science and engineering, especially the latter two, is the subject of Henry Petroski’s book, The Essential Engineer. In particular, Petroski emphasizes the important, and often overlooked, role of engineering is solving pressing problems.



I doesn’t help that people conflate science and engineering, especially by thinking of engineering as branch or application of science. Petroski is clear about the differences. Science is about increasing knowledge. Engineering is about invention. Sometimes scientists do engineering, especially when they create a devise or process to help them in their work of discovery. Sometimes engineers do science, especially when their engage in research and experimentation to gain a better understanding or problems that are not well understood.

The movement of knowledge from science to engineering practice is well understood. Petroski describes how this became ingrained in American research and development policy. Engineering often precedes science and engineers often must invent solutions in areas that are not well understood by science. Galileo’s improvements to the telescope made possible his advancements in astronomy. The science of thermodynamics grew almost entirely out of the desire to understand steam engines, which engineers had been building and improving in the absence of scientific understanding.

This misunderstanding exacerbated by our culture and education. Policy elites and scientist generally have no education in engineering. As an undergraduate studying engineering, I took science classes with students majoring in the sciences. I took classes in political science, economics and other social science and business-oriented classes with students majoring in those fields. I would have been greatly surprised to find in one of my engineering classes a student who wasn’t majoring in engineering.*

Petroski does not try to bring down science. He’s a civil engineering professor at a sizeable university, so he has probably spent quite a bit of time doing science. He does distinguish how science is helpful, mainly as a warning. Science can help us identify and define problems and assess the risks involve. When we begin to devise solutions to those problems, especially when there is no definitive solution and judgment is needed to way the pros and cons of multiple possible answers, we are moving into engineering.

The Essential Engineer is not a technical book. It for anyone who may have an interest in the role of technology in addressing our problems, especially larger societal problems. Petroski draws illustrations from current events and history (he is a professor of history as well as engineering). The book is enlivened with a storytelling feel.

* There were exceptions. I took a course in food processing that was dual-listed in agricultural engineering and food science. It was a required course for both disciplines. Electrical engineering students almost automatically minored in math, and some clever and ambitious students double-majored in those subjects. With a little better planning, I could have swung a minor in agricultural economics, and I almost wish I had. When I got into wastewater engineering, I wished I had taken more microbiology. My pursuit of additional education lead to a graduate degree in public administration. Government agencies have been employers or clients most of my career. It is common for engineers to get a masters degree in business, especially as they become managers.

Henry Petroski also wrote Paperboy.

If you’re interested in this book, you may also be interested in
The Ancient Engineers by L. Sprague de Camp
The Big Necessity by Rose George
Newton and the Counterfeiter by Thomas Levenson

Related News
Avoiding Doomsday: New Ideas for Deflecting Killer Asteroids
Future Asteroid Mission: Mission Impossible?
Potential meteor menace overstated

Better for All the World by Harry Bruinius

Harry Bruinius takes the title of his book, Better for All the World, from a quote from famous United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.  In his opinion, written for a court majority that authorized states to forcibly sterilize some people, Holmes expressed the notion that it was better to sterilize a defective person than to permit them to have defective children who may place greater burden on government systems for justice and welfare.

This legal justification for forced sterilization was just one of the policy victories of the eugenics movement in the America. Eugenicists were also influential in establishing state marriage laws and federal immigration quotas and restrictions.

Even from its start, notions of social engineering and politics tinged the science of eugenics. Francis Galton coined the word that applied to both the study of heredity and the improvement of humanity through selective breeding over generations. Galton established the field based on concepts from his cousin Charles Darwin’s books on evolution, Gregor Mendel’s studies of plant heredity, and his own statistical studies of human characteristics. Though he mostly kept these speculations to himself, he considered the possibility of improving humans through breeding just as farmers improved plants and livestock.

American reformers of all political persuasion welcomed Galton’s ideas; they were looking for reliable, scientific means of tackling poverty and crime. Galton’s method were used to study families and supposedly proved that traits related to poverty, criminality, low intelligence, and the harder to recognize (therefore more dangerous) feeblemindedness. These studies also uncover a troubling pairing in females of feeblemindedness and fecundity. The implication was that the good stock of moral, productive Americans risked overrun by a class of hereditary degenerates. America’s best needed to produce larger family, and its poor and feebleminded needed to be restrained from passing on their inferior traits.

Much of Bruinius’ book focuses on this American eugenics movement. Representing leadership in the scientific community is Charles Davenport. He popularized the work of Galton, convinced the Carnegie Institute to fund a station to study eugenics, and did research that contributed to the early development of genetics. Representing the bridge between science and policy is Harry Laughlin. A Missourian and a protégé of Davenport, his reports and advice to Congress helped to inform restrictive immigration policy and support state programs of forced sterilization of convicts and the feebleminded, ultimately upheld in by the Supreme Court, as previously mentioned, in the case of Buck vs. Bell.

The development of eugenics policy in the U.S. was being watched overseas. In particularly, racial purity laws enacted by the Nazis in Germany explicitly cited American research and legal precedents. Many reformers in America and elsewhere were gratified by the apparent success of eugenics policies in Germany.

Even as it was reaching its peak as a political reform movement, laboratory science was undermining eugenics. Laboratory studies of the mechanisms of heredity, which had discovered chromosomes by the 1930s, were showing that heredity and the expression of traits, especially moral or personality traits, were much more complicated and harder to predict than the eugenicists assumed. Through its association with the Nazis, eugenics became wholly discredited in the public mind, though its effects lingered in American policies for decades.

Our understanding of genetics and heredity has improved a lot. Biotechnology has made a new kind of genetic engineering possible. The eugenicist dreams of eliminating disease and creating better people in future generations is more attainable than ever, at least in limited ways.

If this puts our evolution in our hands, are we ethically and morally evolved enough to use this power? Are humans intelligent animals or are we unique creatures? Are human rights inalienable characteristics of human beings, or are they social constructs, ideas that can rise, fade, or change like other ideas? How does the good of the species relate to the good of the individual? What does it mean to be a parent? The way we answer these questions, and other related to the implications of our science and technology, will establish what kind of people we are, and possibly the destiny of generations to come.

If you’re interested in this book, you may also be interested in

A Little History of Science by William Bynum

The Abolition of Man by C. S. Lewis

The Ghost Map by Steven Johnson

IBM and the Holocaust by Edwin Black

Maus by Art Spiegelman

Men of Tomorrow by Gerard Jones

War Against the Weak by Edwin Black

Bruinius, Harry. Better for All the World: The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and America’s Quest for Racial Purity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006.

The Victory of Reason by Rodney Stark

Stark, Rodney. The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success. New York: Random House, 2005.

Rodney Stark argues in The Victory of Reason that the West grew to prominence in science, technology, commerce, and power because of its foundations in Christianity. Personal freedom, democracy, and capitalism grew and eventually flourished in Western Civilization because Christianity provided a philosophy and set of beliefs that such things were possible, achievable, and valuable. These things failed, stumbled, and declined in other parts of the world because the cultures, particularly religions, that prevailed there supported philosophies and beliefs that lead another direction.

It starts with a notion of God that is almost unique to Christianity: God is a being of reason. Therefore they could use human reason, however imperfect, to understand God and increase our understanding of Him. Christian theology wasn’t simply asserting scripture, but reasoning about God and His Word to increase, refine, and improve knowledge and doctrine.

The Christian faith embraced progress through reason in doctrine. Christians looked forward to becoming progressively better believers. God is immutable, but those who believe Him can grow in understanding as they mature and with successive generations. This religion of belief contrasted with religions of practice, which inherently looked backward to established law.

These foundational beliefs in reason and progress carried over into Christian views of the physical world. It was a real place made by God. In addition, because God created the world using His reason, we can understand it using ours, just as we can use reason to increase our understanding of God. This belief gave impetus to modern science. Some credit goes to the ancient Greek philosophers, some of who had faith in reason and others in experimentation, though not both at the same time. Islamic philosophers admired, preserved and closely studied the Greeks. However, it was Christians who took these resources and added their own worldview to create modern science. Early scientists were Christians, often supported by the church directly or through universities, which were connected to the church at the time. Western nations gained a lead in science that they still hold.

Progress carried over to social and political issues as well. In particular, Christian beliefs about human equality made the church a leader in the abolition of slavery in Europe and later the Americas. It also gave rise to increasingly democratic governments, personal freedoms, and property rights. This created an environment where capitalism could flourish. Capitalism love technological development, and it didn’t hurt that it was growing in cultures that were amenable to science, and these things grew together creating new levels of freedom, opportunity, and wealth. Christian theologians had the flexibility and reasoning power to adapt doctrine to these new developments while remaining true to received scripture.

Stark supports his arguments with examples from history. One of the more interesting things about the book is the way he compares examples from the Christian world to counterexample from other cultures, such as China or Islam. China was a prominent, technologically advance culture that did not hold its lead. Islam preserved Greek knowledge during Europe’s supposedly dark ages, but did not advance. It was the late bloomers in the Christian West who had the philosophical tools to build success upon success. He also contrasts the winners and decliners in Europe and the Americas, showing how successful and wealthy nations became that way by embracing religious liberty, democracy, and capitalism, while those that declined held to or recreated feudal systems.



If you’re interested in this book, you may also be interested in
Copernicus’ Secret by Jack Repcheck
Descarte’s Secret Notebook by Amir D. Aczel
God Wants You to Be Rich by Paul Zane Pilzer
How We Got Here by Andy Kessler
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization by Anthony Esolen
The Richest Man Who Ever Lived by Steven K. Scott
The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek

The Society for Useful Knowledge by Jonathan Lyons

Colonial America was a place that demanded much of settlers. While many appreciated the value of book learning, many came to America because of their strong opinions about a particular book, their new home required them to focus on practical knowledge for developing land, repairing hard-to-get goods and getting the most out of one’s one labor. In The Society for Useful Knowledge, Jonathan Lyons explores this emphasis on utility and its influence on colonial science and the revolutionary generation.

Ben Franklin is the most significant figure discussed by Lyon. He developed an appreciation early in life for the value of skilled labor, he was a printer himself, and he maintained this even as he became America’s most famous scientist and the new nation’s representative in Europe. Franklin’s influence in the American scientific community was huge even though he spent years in Europe; his connections to European scientists were part of the reason for his influence at home.

Franklin and his compatriots saw a great value in encouraging and disseminating useful information in science and engineering, especially if it might increase the productivity of American agriculture and manufacturing. Franklin founded one of the earliest scientific societies in the colonies and it eventually had many imitators. He also supported the establishment of what eventually became the University of Pennsylvania, though he broke with the other organizers when his emphasis on utility conflicted with their desire to provide an education focused on classical languages in the European mold.

Though Franklin was not trying to establish institutions that would lead to the revolution, he and many who worked with him did it anyway. Franklin and his Quaker neighbors preferred education in useful knowledge and trades. Many colonial scientists were self-taught and learned on their farms and workshops. They saw little value in the classical education popular in Europe that distinguished the aristocracy and upper class from others, but did little in their minds to suit a person for a role of value in the community. Americans needed to get stuff done and they didn’t care much about a person’s pedigree. This opened up opportunities for people of low social status to grow in wealth and influence. (Even in Europe, amateur scientists from many classes were common and it especially leveled the social ground around England’s coffeehouses.)

Franklin’s circle of mechanics and part-time scientists influenced the generation that followed them. Franklin’s personal reputation allowed him to be a leader in that generation who became the founders of the United States. The emphasis on practicality and experience, with the accompanying devaluing of ancient authorities in dead languages, influenced American political thought as well as its science, technology and education. The connections he made as a postmaster and scientific communicator also formed a model for the political influencers of his time.

If you’re interested in this book, you may also be interested in

Common Sense by Thomas Paine

46 Pages by Scott Liell

Newton and the Counterfeiter by Thomas Levenson

Lyons, Jonathan. The Society for Useful Knowledge: How Benjamin Franklin and His Friends Brought the Enlightenment to America. New York: Bloomsbury, 2013.

The Numerati by Stephen Baker

Hari Seldon used mathematics to study psychology and society. He developed the science of psychohistory, which he would use to predict future social, economic and political trends. This was utter science fiction when I read Foundation in high school, and doubly so in the 1940s when Isaac Asimov was writing and publishing the stories that would eventually become the novel. (By the way, psychohistory now refers to the application of methods from psychoanalysis to the study of history and social sciences.)

We’ve come a long way. Computers are much more powerful and many of us carry a networked computer around in our pockets much of the day. The computers record a lot of information about us, especially how we use them, and are crunching the numbers so people can anticipate our wants and influence our behaviors.

Stephen Baker gives us a glimpse into that world in his book The Numerati. “Numerati” is Baker’s term for the mathematicians, computer scientists and other math-literate scientists and professionals who are trying to use numbers and equations to describe and predict human behavior.

This type of analysis has applications in many areas. As you might expect, stores, marketers and advertisers are using it to try to sell us stuff. Not only are they trying to persuade us, they are segmenting the market to try to get the highest prices they can for their products from each buyer (and spend less time dealing with die-hard bargain shoppers).

Similarly, politicians are using this type of analysis to reach swing voters. Companies are trying to get the most out of workers.  Health insurance companies are seeking to minimize exposures to risk. Law enforcement is getting all the information it can lay hands on to try to find the terrorist lurking in our midst (finding a needle in a haystack may be easier).

That sounds sinister, and Baker has reservations about the benefits of us sharing so much information, but there are opportunities for those of us who are not numerati, or can’t afford a staff of mathematicians to do our bidding. The numbers that show which workers are most productive could be turned around to help us show our value and potential win a raise or promotion. The numbers that show minute changes in our behavior might help us diagnose and treat diseases earlier and less expensively, or help us live more fully with chronic diseases. They might even match us with a soul mate.

Though science and technology have advanced in the decade since this book was published, the data sciences Baker described are still new. Some of the things we see being done with computers on television or film are still new concepts that don’t work nearly as quickly or accurately as depicted. However, people are working every day to make these technologies better.

If you’re interested in this book, you may also be interested in

Chance by Amir Aczel 

The Drunkard’s Walk by Leonard Mlodinow

Fortune’s Formula by William Poundstone

Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner

How to Build and Android by David F. Dufty 

The Numbers behind NUMB3RS by Keith Devlin & Gary Lorden

The Numbers Game by Michael Blastland & Andrew Dilnot

Rock Breaks Scissors by William Poundstone

Baker, Stephen. The Numerati. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2008.

The Pleasure of Finding Things Out by Richard P. Feynman

The Pleasure of Finding Things Out is a collection of interviews and speeches of physicist and Nobel Prize winner Richard P. Feynman. The theme that runs through most of these items is Feynman’s ideas about what science is and how it is practiced.

 To Feynmen, the essence of a proper scientific attitude is doubt (a version of this idea goes back to René Descartes). It is an honest acceptance that you don’t know anything for certain, and you may accept other ideas about what is most likely true about the world in light of new experiences and better measurements. Science is the testing of ideas to see if they conform to reality and the knowledge that accumulates as a result.

 The physicist is critical of some of the social sciences, some parts of psychology and education research. They use experiment and measurement and other forms from science, but they do not produce results in the manner of the physical sciences. He doesn’t suggest the end of research in these areas, but that they tend to present findings as if there is “scientific” certainty when things are actually very uncertain.

 Feynman led an interesting life, and I took particular interest in his experiences related to very important engineering and policy issues in his lifetime. In one of the interviews, Feynman discussed his work on the Manhattan Project and life at Los Alamos. The editor included Feynman’s minority report on the investigation of the destruction of the space shuttle Challenger, which resulted in the death of all the astronauts on board.

 Richard Feynman also wrote

Six Easy Pieces

 If you’re interested in this book, you may also be interested in:

The Astounding, the Amazing, and the Unknown by Paul Malmont

Descarte’s Secret Notebook by Amir D. Aczel

Einstein’s Clocks, Poincare’s Maps: Empires of Time by Peter Galison 

The Girls of Atomic City by Denise Kiernan

Newton and the Counterfeiter by Thomas Levenson

Planck by Brandon R. Brown

The Powerhouse by Steve Levine

 Feynman, Richard P. The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. Jeffrey Robbins, ed. Cambridge, MA: Helix Books, 1999.

Cure by Jo Marchant

Over my lifetime, I’ve observed an increasing interest in the connection between mind and body. It is not a new concept, but it has gained ground and the Cartesian distinction between mind and body has eroded. However, how we are still learning how it works and the extent to which it is effective in the treatment of disease. Geneticist and science writer Jo Marchant explores these issues in Cure.

Marchant considers three areas in which there appears to be mind-body connections that have promise for use in medical settings. First is the placebo effect. Next, she looks at meditation, biofeedback and hypnosis. Finally, she discusses the effects of our viewpoint, especially how increase or reduce stress.

We are equipped with an internal pharmacy that can reduce or aggravate pain, and it can be triggered by something as vague as our expectations. This placebo affect can be as powerful as drugs at reducing pain and some other symptoms of disease, which can make it difficult to test the effectiveness of drugs. Some physicians are starting to change their minds about the placebo effect. Instead of seeing it as a problem that gets in the way of testing drugs, they are seeing it a potential substitute for drugs. The placebo effect has limitations; it can reduce pain and symptoms, but it does not cure the underlying disease or injury. There is also a nocebo effect, which causes pain and fatigue.

Another interesting effect discussed by Marchant is conditioning of the immune system. In some cases, we can prompt the immune system to have a conditioned response; we can train it. After taking a drug, the immune system can reproduce the response to the drug at lower doses. We can strengthen the conditioning by accompanying the drug with strong rituals; repeating the rituals can produce the response to some degree. This holds some promise for improving the effectiveness of drugs and reducing the dose needed to be effective, especially when a drug as serious side effects. I thought this was fascinating.

Our brain is more connected, and in control, of our bodily functions that we previously realized. Meditation, hypnosis and biofeedback can allow people to exercise control over operations of the body that were previously thought to be automatic or even independent of the brain. This includes pain, blood flow, stress response, heart rate variability and vagal tone.

Relationships also have a profound effect on our health. Strong social connections keep us young, and lack of relationships is harmful to our health. Our own compassion for others can reduce stress hormones and inflammation. When physicians, surgeons, nurses and other health care professionals care for their patients as people, those patients receiving the emotional support experience less pain and longer lives.

Marchant shows there is potential for a new way of doing medicine, or room to reintroduce older practices. By slowing down and showing genuine concern for patients, doctors can multiply the effect of their treatment. Teaching people to slow down and pay attention to their bodies, the people they love and the good things in their lives, we can take advantage of the healing capacities of the mind and body. Medicine can be less about dispensing drugs and more about lifestyle and relationship.

If you’re interested in this book, you may also be interested in

The Beethoven Factor by Paul Pearsall

Change Your Brain Change Your Body by Daniel G. Amen

Descarte’s Secret Notebook by Amir D. Aczel

Ecclesiastes

The Genius in All of Us by David Shenk

I Can Make You Happy by Paul McKenna

I Can Make You Thin by Paul McKenna

Instant Self-Hypnosis by Forbes Robbins Blair

Job

The Last Self-Help Book You'll Ever Need by Paul Pearsall

Overwhelmed by Brigid Schulte

Psalms

The Relaxation Response by Herbert Benson with Miriam Z. Klipper

The Road Less Traveled by M. Scott Peck

The Solution by Lucinda Bassett

Solve for Happy by Mo Gawdat

Suggestible You by Erik Vance

Switch on Your Brain by Caroline Leaf

Take the Leap by Heather McCloskey Beck

Timeless Healing by Herbert Benson with Marg Stark

Writing Down the Bones by Natalie Goldberg

Marchant, Jo. Cure: A Journey into the Science of Mind over Body. New York: Crown, 2016.

Dr. Horrible, the Hamlet of Nerds

Okay, comparing Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog to Hamlet, one of the greatest plays in the English language, is the type of hyperbole writers, especially on the Internet, use to draw in a reader.  I presume it worked on you.

There are points of comparison. Both are tragedies. Both feature lead characters giving themselves over to being people they might not really have wanted to become, at least not at the beginning. Both carry a sense of terrifying inevitability.

Having hooked you with Hamlet, I’m going to carry on about Dr. Horrible.  The film plays on concepts of nerdiness, jocks, and what is the potential tragedy of a world in which nerds can’t find a place for themselves (though they seem to be everywhere). It does so in the nerdy context of superhero films and musicals, the mash up of these genres being geeky itself.

About the Film

Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog was produced as a serial for the Internet.  The film was written by Joss Whedon, his brothers Zack and Jed, and Maurissa Tancharoen to produce something during the 2007-2008 strike by the Writer’s Guild.  It appeared on the Dr. Horrible Web site in three parts in July 2008 and is now available on DVD.

The familiar star of the film is Neil Patrick Harris, who plays Barney on How I Met Your Mother. I don’t enjoy that show much, but fortunately Harris has found other outlets for his performing talent. It is unfair to say Dr. Horrible launched her career, but I think it helped Felicia Day achieve a new level, especially on the Internet.  She is everywhere now and produces the Geek & Sundry YouTube channel.

Plot Summary

Dr. Horrible (Harris) is an aspiring supervillain.  He is seeking entry into the Evil League of Evil, but his prospects are threatened by superhero Captain Hammer (Nathan Fillion).

The pursuit of supervillainy is complicated by Dr. Horrible’s double-mindedness even more than his nemesis.  As his alter ego Billy, the doctor is smitten with Penny (Day), a girl he meets at the Laundromat.  She meets and begins to date Captain Hammer. Hammer recognizes his enemy and flaunts the affair.

Dr. Horrible retreats from the situation and focuses on the League.  They are not impressed with his recent failures, but he can prove himself by killing someone in one of his capers.  He plans to kill Hammer. Things go wrong when Horrible sees Penny at the event where he plans to exact his revenge and begins to experience a change of heart.  Hammer gains control of Horrible’s death ray, which is overloading. In spite of Horrible’s warning, Hammer uses the weapon, which explodes, causing him pain but no apparent injury. Fragments of the death ray hit the crowd and kill Penny.

In one stroke, Horrible loses his love and gains his dead victim.  He is admitted to the League. He abandons hope and embraces evil.  It’s dark stuff for a musical comedy.

Dr. Horrible: Protagonist, Villain, Nerd

Dr. Horrible is a nerd.  As support of this notion, if it isn’t readily apparent, I turn to the characteristics of nerds identified by Benjamin Nugent in American Nerd.  He suggests that people associated nerds with machine like qualities. Nerds seem machine like in that they

• like working with machines, having interest in technical subjects or complex hobbies, and
• prefer direct, logical, rule-bound communication to indirect, emotional communication.

In his first appearance, Dr. Horrible is recording a vlog entry in his lab. Throughout the film, he talks about his inventions and uses them. He is clearly at home in the realm of technology. Not only that, he identifies himself with science and technology with his costume: long white (lab) coat, long rubber gloves, and goggles.

While comfortable with technology and talking about it, he is uncomfortable with emotional communication. He has trouble expressing his feelings to Penny, and he has trouble reading the signs that she might be attracted to him. In light of this, he is oddly eloquent on his vlog.  In Quiet, Susan Cain noted that introverts often communicate a lot through social media, and rise to leadership in online communities.  They communicate very well when relieved of the pressures and distractions of face-to-face communications. Nerdiness and introversion aren’t synonymous, but I think it strengthens the case for Dr. Horrible’s nerdiness in his preference for technologically mediated communication that is formalized through a script (an unscripted vlog would not be eloquent) and music (with rules for rhythm, pitch, and rhyme).

Captain Hammer: Antagonist, Hero, Jock

Captain Hammer is the antithesis of a nerd: a jock.  I turn again to American Nerd to help make this diagnosis. Nugent notes that the nerd image was at one time associated with immigrant communities that were rising in population and status. Immigrant pursuit of New World opportunities was shaped by their Old World perspective, so they sought upward mobility in artistic and intellectual professions.

The established upper class wanted to both maintain its dominance and distinguish itself from lower classes, especially immigrants. They adopted a preference for athleticism and a suspicion of excessive intellectualism. Book-learning had its place, but a boy who would take his place as active leader in business, political, and military affairs needed to learn how to win. Sporting fields and athletic competitions were seen as the classroom for these skills. Athleticism as associated with a certain class (because such vigorous leisure required time and resources).  This magnified the upper class sense of superiority.

We can see this in reflected Captain Hammer. His superhuman physical superiority seems to be a justification for his overall sense of being superior to others, especially the weaker and physically cowardly Horrible. Even his activities as a do-gooder seem to lack a moral motivation outside a vague noblesse oblige. He seems more interested in establishing and maintaining his status. For instance, his support of Penny’s campaign to end homelessness is motivated by the positive publicity he receives, not by love of his fellow man—he does not perceive value in homeless people.

The Tragedy of Dr. Horrible

Dr. Horrible, then, is a classic conflict between a typical nerd and a typical jock, except they are a supervillain and a superhero in a comic book-style world where such people exist. Where is the tragedy?

We’ve already noted the death of Penny. That is enough to make the film a tragedy, but not necessarily a nerdy one.

The tragedy of the nerd is to be trapped in alienation. Admittedly, nerds seem to be increasingly popular nowadays, but the more traditional image of a nerd is of one alienated from popular society because his machine-like qualities are not valued in a culture that sees emotional display and sensitivity as more worthy and human.

Nerds are not naturally loners, though. They have a long history of building their own communities. Science fiction fandom is a good example. Long before the Internet, sci-fi fans built communities of letter writing and zines around popular magazines. Before long, they began gathering at clubs and conventions. This culture carried over into comic book fandom (for more on this check out Men of Tomorrow by Gerard Jones). Nugent notes how a similar community of nerds, also readers popular magazines, formed around ham radio, where technological skill and rule-bound communication were prized.

We’ve noted that Dr. Horrible also seeks connection to a community. He specifically identifies his desire to be part of the League.  His quest for world domination is also motivated by a desire to connect with the wider community of humanity. He wants to take over the world not because he hates people, but because he longs for a logical meritocracy that would rid the world of all the trouble cause by emotionalism, celebrity culture, and doublespeak. In his fantasy, he would naturally rise to the top of such a society.

Captain Hammer frustrates these efforts at connection. He reinforces a culture of athleticism and emotional communication that Horrible cannot participate in. When he finds a sympathetic soul who may be able to help him make that connection, Hammer sweeps her away. At last, Horrible wins entry into a community, but the League is evil and inhumane, and can only serve to further dehumanize its members. The cost to Horrible to finally belong is high; he must turn his back on the rest of humanity and give up the hope of ever loving or being loved by another. He is completely alienated, cut off from meaningful and fulfilling connections to others.

The Sequel

A sequel is reported in the works and expected to be released this year.  I would expect most of the major characters to return.

I imagine many fans would like to see Day reprise her role as Penny, though the character died in the first film.  Because this is a superhero movie, there are several ways around this: time travel, cloning, robotic or holographic doubleganger (it’s a word, and it doesn’t need an umlaut), or reanimation (no zombies, please).  Maybe Dr. Horrible will try all of these things, each effort going more wrong than the last. He could be forced to team up with Captain Hammer to fend off an army of time-travel replicated, cyborg zombie Pennies, but I probably wouldn’t watch it because I’m creeped out by the walking dead.

Making Your Connection

You may be nerd seeking connection, too.  I’ve provided a little information below where you can find out about the people behind this film and the books I mentioned. They’re involved in other things and you may find that work interesting. Please do not cyberstalk them.  I don’t want that on my conscience.

Susan Cain

Book: Quiet (review)

Facebook: AuthorSusanCain

Twitter: @susancain

Web site: www.thepowerofintroverts.com

Felicia Day

Facebook: Felicia Day

Google+: +Felicia Day

IMDb: Felicia Day

Twitter: @feliciaday

Web site: feliciaday.com

YouTube: Geek & Sundry

Nathan Fillion

IMDb: Nathan Fillion

Twitter: @NathanFillion

Neil Patrick Harris

IBDB: Neil Patrick Harris

IMDb: Neil Patrick Harris

Twitter: @ActuallyNPH

YouTube: Neil’s Puppet Dreams on Nerdist

Gerard Jones

Book: Men of Tomorrow (review)

ComicBookDB: Gerard Jones

IMDb: Gerard Jones

Red Room: Gerard Jones

Web site: www.gerardjones.com

Benjamin Nugent

Book: American Nerd (review)

Web site: www.benjaminnugent.com, www.americannerdbook.com

Maurissa Tancharoen

IMDb: Maurissa Tancharoen

Jed Whedon

IMDb: Jed Whedon

Twitter: @jedwhedon

Joss Whedon

IMDb: Joss Whedon

Web site: whedonesque.com

Zack Whedon

IMDb: Zack Whedon

Twitter: @ZDubDub

Google