Remember when having muscles and wearing aviators was cool? Like, back when people had to work out for days to get those sick, rock-hard abs so that they could impress all their friends and wear really tight shirts (or no shirt at all)? When characters like Screech from Saved By The Bell and Urkel from Family Matters were universal laughingstocks for their large glasses, high pants, and tight suspenders? Well, that age is over. It was fun while it lasted! But if Zooey Deschanel's ubiquity tells us anything, it's that you no longer have to be good at sports or particularly funny to be attractive to the opposite gender—you don't even have to be all that cool! And that, my friends, is a win for the vast majority of us.
The girl seems to be everywhere these days, doing cute things with Joseph Gordon-Levitt, or posting photos of her tuxedo-themed fingernails, or sometimes making an appearance on the new Gawker series chronicling her adorable adventures. But ten years ago, back in the early 2000s, would she have really been that cool? Certainly not cool enough to have her on little series on Gawker. And probably not cool enough to have her own T.V. show either. Not only that, the show itself does little to cloak its heroin's perceived awkwardness. In fact, it has capitalized on it: the show has made this manic-pixie dream girl shtick an endearingly attractive component of Deschanel's personality. The secret behind her internet-fueled, geek chic inspired success is that we've entered an era where being a nerd is finally in. And the Zooey Deschanels, and Joseph Gordon-Levitts, and Liz Lemons are the faces of this generation.
Like it or not, Zooey Deschanel epitomizes what it means to be "adorkable." Still in its infancy, Deschanel's gimmick remains to be a polarizing one. Some guys hate it. Others guys love it. Some girls hate it. Other girls also hate it. The point is, there's something about Zooey—the actress, as well as everything she represents—that makes her infinitely appealing, yet easily irritating.
For the purpose of full disclosure: I have bought in, one-hundred percent, to Zooey Deschanel's adorkability. I'm about one more She and Him Christmas album away from publicly declaring my love for her across multiple social networks. Yes, plenty of people hate me for that, but it's the truth. That being said, I've thought a lot about why this is the case and I've distilled my thoughts down to the five essential components to being "adorkable" (Just to be clear, in my head, discussions discerning what it means to be adorkable and what it means to be Zooey Deschanel are simply separate paths leading to the same destination.):
1. You can't try. Deschanel is awkward–not because she wants to be, but because she just is. No director has to tell her to do add those weird pauses or interject an unexpected snort here and there. She does those things anyway.
2. You have to embrace everything about geeks: their style, their skinniness, their mannerisms, everything. Deschanel's quirky wardrobe is a reflection of this adorkability era's willingness to push the envelope on how far we can take this whole "being-a-nerd-is-cool" thing. I bet it makes Bill Cunningham so proud.
3. You can never, ever, have a conversation with anyone without one of the following: a reference to a late eighties rock band, an aside on cardigans (and/or sweater vests), an awkward pause, an awkwardly long laugh, or a furtive body turn in order to push the non-prescription glasses you're wearing up the bridge of your nose because the nervous sweat pouring down your face has caused them to slip slightly.
4. Always remember: Don't be funny, be witty. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what the distinction is between the two, but I definitely know I'd rather be witty than funny. Because, like, chicks love dudes who are witty, right? Oh, and you guys, Zooey Deschanel is so witty.
5. If you're male, you have to be as attractive as Joseph Gordon-Levit/Adam Scott. If you're a female, ditto with Zooey Deschanel/Tina Fey. This one is definitely the toughest, but whatever, reach for the stars, boys and girls!
Okay, so maybe it isn't so easy to pinpoint adorkability. If it was, it'd be a real thing. Either way, I'm no impresario when it comes to defining the intricacies of these cultural trends—I prefer to speak in broad, ambiguous, vaguely academic terms. However, if decades from now, "adorkability" is adapted by sociological studies as a staple of their research, I'd like to hope I'm given some credit.
And hey, if I'm totally wrong about this, at least I'll still have my collection of Warby-Parker Roosevelt glasses to keep me happy.
