Three cheers for Daniel Radcliffe, geek

Me neither, not really into science fiction; probably qualify as bright.

The reality is that just as ESR has done over and over again he has cast the hacker persona as a reflection of himself. If you read his writings on hackers then he's really describing himself and imagining that everyone is like this. Here he's saying that the 'geek persona' is another ESR-type.

I found this very annoying when I read the hacker description in The New Hackers Dictionary because there were thinks that I just wasn't:

1. Learn to write your native language well.

2. Read science fiction. Go to science fiction conventions.

3. Train in a martial-arts form.

4. Study an actual meditation discipline.

5. Develop an analytical ear for music.

6. Learn to play some musical instrument well, or how to sing.

7. Develop your appreciation of puns and wordplay.

So 1, 5 and 7 are things that I'm in agreement with. I have no interest in 2, 3 or 4. 6 would probably be fun.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html

[opinion] Good Science Fiction adds layers of abstraction onto the narrative which asks the reader to think differently about a given topic than a "reality-based" fiction narrative might. Intelligent/Bright people are good at this kind of multi-tasking and get enjoyment out of the process. This doesn't mean that a requisite hallmark of intelligence is enjoying sci-fi, it just means that to really appreciate it you may need to be smarter than the average bear[/opinion]

I would imagine it's reverse attribution -- most people who read SF are bright, therefore bright people read SF...

>Why would he have suspected Radcliffe of being a "face person"? He's not just "famous for being famous", he's famous for starring in an incredibly successful series of movies.

Being famous for being in a movie seems very close to being famous for being famous to me.

When he was in the first Harry Potter movie Radcliffe was just a cute looking kid that could act a bit, they could have probably chosen from dozens of others and had a similar success.

He was chosen almost certainly because his face fit the bill - he had the right look. He most definitely wouldn't have been chosen if he'd been ugly.

So his fame, as opposed to someone else’s fame is largely IMO down to his face - certainly it's not down to his being a geek or his apparent intelligence. He was also helped by nepotism it seems.

Now, he also appears to have taken well to his role and made the best of it and so his continued "stardom" and his career beyond the first Harry Potter is certainly laudable.

because its most likely that you'll find a horde of kids willing to buy a magazine with his face on it.

on the flip side of that coin, you'll find there's a horde of adults willing to buy a magazine with jobs or buffet on the cover, in a similar way.