Limyaael ([info]limyaael) wrote,
@ 2005-06-27 17:33:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: bitchy
Entry tags:character type rants, fantasy rants: summer 2005

Rant on genius characters
The rant on genius characters, which has to do with ways of keeping them in check and having fun with them and using them in plots and…well, everything else I could think of, really.



1) Choose your intelligence. The quickest way to make a genius character unbelievable is to make her a genius at everything, from music to magic to math to matters military, from poetry to pottery to planting to planning. Everything she turns her hand to is effortless for her. As a result, she solves all the plot problems, and becomes boring to read about. I’ve read short stories, and even sections of novels, before that are little more than recitations of the genius character’s amazing abilities. The author is stupefied with her creation, and I’m stupefied that anyone is actually content to write like that. (For more reason than one. See point 6).

So. Choose your kind of intelligence. It doesn’t have to depend on Western divisions of it. Perhaps the connections between music and mathematics in your world are open and explicit, and so it’s not astonishing that a genius at one is a deft hand with the other. Perhaps your military genius is good at both strategy and tactics. Perhaps magic in your world absolutely depends on knowing the movements of the stars, and so an expert astronomer is also an astonishing mage by default.

But don’t make it all-encompassing. The more specialized knowledge that your character has, in fact, the more years she’s spent steeped in one subject or another, the less likely it is that she’ll also be deeply acquainted with all the subjects remotely related to it, never mind subjects that have no relation. There’s the problems of time and acquiring knowledge, especially in a fantasy world (see point 2), and the problem of interest, and the problem of the plot. I would encourage you to go for specialized geniuses, in fact. Then neither the readers nor the author has to worry about this character solving every obstacle that happens along.

2) Genius != knowledge. The genius astronomer-mage I talked about is not going to astonish anyone if he doesn’t know the movements of the stars, what comets and planets mean in this system, what the constellations are, what the best way to observe distant stars is, how to translate the movements into magic, and so on. Having him elaborate a system all on his own, and having it turn out to be the match or equal of the system already in place, is stretching plausibility very far. Many people think about genius scientists in our own world making astonishing discoveries, and assume they did it all on their own. The point is that those scientists didn’t start out in the desert of ignorance; they knew the basics of their own systems, what other scientists had discovered before them, and what conditions would produce verifiable results rather than ones that couldn’t be duplicated. It’s much easier to build genius out of a community, especially a community that can recognize your ability and name it for what it is (see point 3).

So. Don’t assume that “instinctive talent” will get your genius character everywhere. Show what kind of education he had, what he knew before he started, and what innovations he’s made. Find some way, if your fantasy world does not have a printing press, to account for where he might have read the books he’d need. If his genius is entirely based on practical experience, think about whom he could have learned from, and where he’d have come into contact with them. Utterly isolated backwater villages are not going to help you in this respect, as you’ll have to come up with a pretty convincing reason that there’s a master swordsman hanging around in one of them who just happens to recognize the budding genius’s talent and dedicate himself to training it. Cities and academic environments are much easier.

They’re easier for getting your character recognized, too.

3) Think about the context your genius is put in. A modern Western audience would know it’s astonishing for a young poet to begin writing sonnets the equal of Shakespeare’s at 16. However, if the young poet lives in a twelfth-century village where there are no sonneteers, I want to know why they’d recognize what she’s doing as astonishing at all. They’d probably shrug, especially if the sonnets are excessively formal or use slant rhymes that are hard to remember. Her sonnets might get a singing around the fire, but it’s a stretch that the village would band together and raise thousands of gold coins to send her off to the local equivalent of Oxford. Prejudices against youth, gender, race, and wasting time with scribbling are going to weigh into that, never mind the fact that writing material in such an environment will be rare.

Don’t rely on the fact that your character might well be seen as a genius in the world outside your story. That persuades only your readers, and not all of them with any reliability. The characters in the story are going to have recognize it, too, and not by some silly “somehow she knew that this was remarkable, that she would never hear sonnets the equivalent of this” mechanism.

Alternatively, a genius sonneteer in a poetic family may be first among equals, but not cowered to or built up into the equivalent of Shakespeare. She’s exercising a talent that they recognize and honor her for, not something entirely new and eye-popping. She’s probably also had education in sonnet forms and by reading the sonnets of other poets, so they know she’s not producing it out of thin air.

The sonneteer in a temple who grows up learning in the temple school and composing sonnets in praise of her goddess is something else again. Perhaps all the formal, written prayers before that were in ottava rima The priestesses might wonder, might compare the sonnets with the old prayers and nod, might resist adopting them and start an academic and theological schism over whether the new prayers or the older ones are better. But there, as well as recognizing her poetic genius, the priestesses would have the concerns of theology to weigh them against, and whether or not these new poems honored the goddess.

There’s a rich supply of scenarios here. I named these because I like all of them better than the usual scenario where the genius gets “discovered,” brought into an environment where people practice the same skill, astonishes them all (and turns the evil ones bitter with envy), and ends up triumphing because she’s so obviously better. It’s too much a retread of our own Western concerns, and the myth that genius springs from nothing and flourishes like a rose in the world, and if it’s ignored or competed with, that’s a crime. It’s also, in some cases, very obviously the author using the book as therapy. The further she can travel from her own high school or college experience when she writes a genius in another world, the happier the audience is ultimately going to be.

4) Give the genius flaws related to his intelligence that are not absent-mindedness or social ineptness. Those are clichés by now—the absent-minded professor, the character who lives in a medieval fantasy world but might as well have “NERD” typed on his forehead. There are plenty of other flaws related to intelligence that you can use instead.

One is lack of empathy. The person who believes that what she can do isn’t astonishing, that everyone could do the same thing if they concentrated only a little bit, is annoying to many. (I’ve been in classes with people like that; they make terrible teachers and students, both). She’ll probably get impatient easily and stalk away from someone who needs to be shown the skill just a few more times. And if you’ve got a character who’s a certifiable genius, the likelihood will increase. She can see the way that this magical pattern needs to be held in the mind, why can’t everyone else? They must be stupid!

So, of course, close beside lack of empathy runs arrogance. I don’t think it’s a contradiction for someone to believe that what she can do isn’t that special and yet act with cool hauteur to everyone around her. She sees herself as practicing a modest skill, and these dunderheads won’t stand up and take notice that it’s a modest skill. Argh! How frustrating! Such a character practically writes herself, flaws and all. The main challenge becomes for the author not to get so caught up in her vision of reality that he starts writing all the other characters as truly stupid.

There’s also obsession. I’m sure you’ve had the experience of getting cornered by someone who keeps chattering on about a subject in which you have no interest. Write a genius who does that, and then, while you can still make him socially inept, the focus moves off clichés like not knowing which fork to use at a formal dinner. The genius mage can forget that not everyone has the same compelling interest in magic that he does, and talk people who have even a nominal interest into the ground. Obsessions aren’t always pretty from the outside, however much they sparkle and gleam from the inside.

Just one more flaw, and I’ll move on to the next point: the tendency to rely on that one skill to the exclusion of all else. The mage with a great deal of specialized knowledge in water magic may become helpless when he gets kidnapped and taken far inland; that’s a given. But a genius mage who’s never studied anything else might not even try another route at escape. He’ll think that he has to use water magic, and keep trying long past the point when someone else would have started to sweet-talk the captors or get the ropes loose.

There is no reason that a genius character has to solve all the problems in your story. He’ll cause a great deal more if you just start looking at what the consequences of his knowledge are (and, of course, don’t make him good at everything under the sun).

5) Give him flaws that aren’t related to his intelligence. This is short and sweet and probably obvious, but it sure gets ignored a lot when it comes to geniuses. That one trait grows and becomes not a part of them, but them. The character has no flaws that are not related to his genius. He has no knowledge, or lack thereof, that does not relate to it. The reactions of every character around him are shaped by their knowledge of him being brilliant in that one particular area.

This is the road back to a stock character, and you’ll want to avoid it. There is no absolute law that says genius characters can’t be hypocrites, gossips, sulky, quick-tempered, prone to jumping to conclusions, irrational about not getting their favorite food at dinner one night, or believers in stupid superstitions. I would find it more refreshing if more of them were.

So. Spin a complete person, not just “a genius.” It would help.

6) SHOW. Genius is one of those qualities that, for me, must be shown and not just told. The writer might tell me that a character’s tall, and I’ll nod and accept it. The writer might tell me that he’s handsome, and I’ll shrug—maybe wonder why no one along the way reacts to him as if he were handsome, but not worry greatly about it. The writer might tell me that the character’s a genius at poetry, and then the first atrociously rhymed poem which doesn’t scan comes along and I’ll laugh my ass off.

You commit yourself to doing a genius, you commit yourself to demonstrating his genius. This might be by indirect description rather than actual transcription, especially if you yourself do not share the talent. You might talk about the effect that a political orator’s speech has on his audience, for example, rather than writing it out. But that’s not always going to be an escape, and if you do it too often, it’s obviously an escape instead of a writing choice. Sooner or later the military genius will have to march into battle, the genius mage will have to do something awesome and clever with his magic, and the master swordsman will have to fight.

This is where those sections of short stories and novels that are simply lists of a character’s amazing abilities—“Oh, she can read more languages than anyone alive and fling firebolts hot enough to melt steel and see the future and the past in her dreams and her mother was the last werewolf”—are not just clunky or stupefying, but dismal failures. The author tells them, but does not show them. The character often doesn’t read languages at all, or the description of her doing so is childish. The author gives the audience something utterly prosaic, not astonishing, claims it’s astonishing, and expects the readers to cheer.

Yawn.

Your characters have to be more than words on a page to engage the reader’s heart and imagination. They have to be more than statements of genius or abilities in order to look smart or skilled. And if you tell your readers that you have someone who can do wonderful things, guess what? You’ve just committed yourself to giving them someone and something wonderful.

Good luck.

7) Chance says, “Fuck you,” to genius as often as to anything else. A master swordswoman fighting on ice? Who’s to say that the ice won’t crack beneath her and take her down into the dark waters? And, while I have no doubt that she’s skilled with the sword, I have my doubts that she’s similarly skilled at fighting hypothermia.

The scientific genius goes on a journey to study animals and concoct his astonishing theories about them? There’s no saying that an insect won’t bite him and inflict him with a crippling disease. Insects don’t generally care whether they’re biting geniuses or not.

The world explorer goes sailing off on a journey around the world and brings back valuable knowledge? That doesn’t stop a plague from striking at home, or civil war. He may not have a home to come back to.

I bring this up because, often, when something does befall a genius character, it’s always, always connected back to the fact that he’s a genius, Point 4 all over again. The master swordswoman knows about the ice, fights there deliberately, and manages to swim to shore before the cold can take her (often with the author obviously having no idea how quickly winter water kills, or how much armor weighs). The scientific genius gets ignored and slighted by his jealous contemporaries. The sailor comes home to find that his wife gave up on him and married someone else. They should be pitied, because their decisions in the name of genius are what recoil back on them.

Don’t always do this. Be aware of what traps are going to lie in your world whether or not your character is skilled at dealing with them. Make this person a citizen of your world, once more, not excepted from misfortunes that would take down anyone else because of what they are.



Geniuses are damn fun to write, and possibly wonderful fun to plot with, but too many become their intelligence or talent instead of intelligent and talented people.




(55 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]goldjadeocean
2005-06-27 09:41 pm UTC (link)
I was reading The Count of Monte Cristo this morning and I really wish Dumas could have read this. But, alas, he's dead, and probably wouldn't have cared anyway.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]fullmetalkatu
2005-06-28 12:16 am UTC (link)
Again, I say, Dumas = Dumbass.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]woodburner
2005-06-28 02:24 am UTC (link)
Ahahaha... it's true. Although, in his defense, he did have the excuse of Edmond a)have many things that forced him into learning all that stuff, and b)have the utter rage to fuel his determination to learn everything in the whole world and learn it quickly.

Still, it was a bit too much to swallow. o.o

The Edmond in Gankutsuou (anime sci-fi retelling of CoMC if you're not familiar with it) had a better excuse. Having your body possessed by a crystaline symbiotic organism is bound to bring on some funky changes. Like being invincible and a genius and... blue.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]alex_von_cercek, 2005-06-28 12:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]woodburner, 2005-06-28 12:57 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]alex_von_cercek, 2005-06-28 05:03 pm UTC

[info]fadethecat
2005-06-27 10:54 pm UTC (link)
Ooo. Good stuff. And especially helpful as what I'm writing right now has two main viewpoint characters, and they have markedly different intelligences. (Genius scientist vs. slightly-dim jock, to put it one way.)

...actually, now I'd be interested to hear about that sort of divide, though it's possibly a little too specialized to ask for a whole rant on. How to write characters with non-shining intelligence. A way to make them miss a few clues the readers will catch without being laughably dumb, for example.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2005-06-28 07:15 pm UTC (link)
Who shouldn't be laughably dumb? The characters or the readers? :)

Actually, I think the best way to make the characters miss some clues is to put them in a situation where their personalities, assumptions, and inclinations will keep them from noticing them. That's where Point 7 can be useful. So often, genius characters are put in situations where their gifts matter and they can control everything and solve all mysteries. Instead, say, take an obsessive genius who chooses to believe that the murderer must have used water magic because that would have been the clever and subtler way, and totally ignores the idea of poison in the wine, and you can pull the reader along- as long as the genius is believably and deeply characterized, of course.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kutsuwamushi
2005-06-27 10:55 pm UTC (link)
There’s also obsession.

I have a character like this. He's convinced that since he finds his studies fascinating, everyone else would too, if only they would be patient enough to let him explain it. (Nevermind that even if they were, he's just not as good at explaining things as he thinks he is.) His friends have learned to cut him off or just smile and nod, because if they try to understand what he's saying and don't, he gets frustrated with them.

I think it'd be interesting to write a short story where he puts together some important information, but no one will take his explanation seriously because they think he's just babbling again.

Genius is one of those qualities that, for me, must be shown and not just told.

Exactly.

If your story doesn't require you to demonstrate that your character is a genius, you should ask why you want her to be a genius in the first place. For example, if she's an academic, she doesn't have to be a genius to be so - she could just be smart and hard-working. And if being a genius is just the way that she is in your head, you should ask yourself why you need your readers to know she's a genius, since it's not relevant to the story.

I'm sure there are reasons (like character development), but if there aren't it's probably just going to come across as creeping Author's Darling syndrome.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2005-06-28 07:18 pm UTC (link)
His friends have learned to cut him off or just smile and nod, because if they try to understand what he's saying and don't, he gets frustrated with them.

I have known so many people like this in English academia that it's not funny. I think it's actually a good thing that many of us teach freshman composition and not literature classes on the books we're obsessed with; I know I'd be tempted to bring in theoretical considerations that the students just aren't ready for.

If your story doesn't require you to demonstrate that your character is a genius, you should ask why you want her to be a genius in the first place.

A lot of the time it seems to be one of two answers:

1) It's cool. I think it's the same reason lots of people make their characters fire mages instead of mages who just reach in and stop their enemies' hearts without fuss.

or

2) It's convenient; rather than coming up with a way for the character to solve problems, the author just says that she solves it because she's so smart. Never mind that we then get dumped in the mind of a character who seems to think in an entirely ordinary way.

I'm sure there are reasons (like character development), but if there aren't it's probably just going to come across as creeping Author's Darling syndrome.

Especially because many of those authors probably tend to think of themselves as the same kind of scorned smart kid.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]ana_beachcombe, 2006-02-12 12:57 pm UTC

[info]evilstorm
2005-06-27 11:02 pm UTC (link)
#4 makes me laugh. A lot. Because there was this autistic boy in my class and, well, yeah. Absolute fucking genius at maths, but he couldn't teach for nuts. "It's just that way, dammit!" Grar.

(Reply to this)


[info]the_s_guy
2005-06-27 11:15 pm UTC (link)
—“Oh, she can read more languages than anyone alive and fling firebolts hot enough to melt steel and see the future and the past in her dreams and her mother was the last werewolf”

Laurell K. Hamilton to the courtesy phone, please.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]hakerh
2005-06-28 01:32 am UTC (link)
Haha, so true. That's why I stopped reading Hamilton. The two biggest Mary Sue/Marty Stus in published literature are Anita Blake and Clive I-cameo-in-my-own-books Cussler's Dirk Pitt.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]bneuensc, 2005-06-28 05:36 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]lawnnun, 2005-09-11 07:57 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]tavalya_ra, 2005-06-28 02:06 am UTC

[info]goblin_11
2005-06-28 02:00 am UTC (link)
Actually, I have to argue with number one- not the fact that areas should be limited, but the fact that a genius character will only know one area of expertise. It is a common stereotype- along with "wears glasses, has no social skills".

Having gone to summer camp for talented youth, a lot of the poeple I met there were in fact geniuses- you know, of the "I never failed to solve a mathematical problem given to me" variety. Or, alternativly- "I only do the hard problems, because the rest are a waste of paper and the time to write them" "Dude, we can't even solve any of the rest!". Since the rest of us were not complete idiots, it should be remarked that this person qualified for some sort of genius status. It should also be noted that he wrote 9page papers on the theory of consiossness. For fun.

And of course, was obsessed with the game of dots, speaking with an english accent and so forth. To further say it- a lot of smart people that I have met, did, in fact, know more than one area of math or science. In fact, they were more likely to be experts in that other area than any random person.

The problem with that is the eccentricity of the above mentioned areas (ahem, do non-nerds obsess over duct tape? Didn't think so.), obsession (If you are in a ring of people and you are thinking of a ring of numbers...) and the ability to fit a two page proof into 2 square decimeters by writing in about 3 layers of the same colored chalk. He was a bit naive too, I suspect, although nobody(himself included) tested this or even cared about it.

I don't know. I think I would like to see that done propoerly. I am sur eit go wrong about 100 times along the way though.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2005-06-28 07:24 pm UTC (link)
Actually, I have to argue with number one- not the fact that areas should be limited, but the fact that a genius character will only know one area of expertise. It is a common stereotype- along with "wears glasses, has no social skills".

This is where 2 and 3 come in. I have much less problem with multi-talented geniuses in urban fantasy or fantasies where the worlds are Enlightenment-level or later in terms of technology. In other environments, though, the characters are going to lack:

-Technology that makes the learning of many subject areas easier (including recordings of music, books that unite knowledge from diverse fields and different investigators, and so on).
-Time. When you have to spend your time struggling just to get enough food to eat, less time goes to development of multiple genius-level talents.
-Materials, like writing materials, to make sure that the great ideas don't just all fly away.
-A system that classifies those kinds of talents the same way we do. That's why I noted in the second paragraph of point 1 that, if the fantasy world lumps music and math together, I wouldn't be surprised to see a character who was talented in both. I would become more skeptical if the character was talented in music, math, astronomy, magic, multiple modern languages, ancient languages, and so on.
-Interest. I want to see why the character has interest in these multiple fields, and it being convenient to the plot isn't enough of a reason.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]goblin_11, 2005-06-28 08:08 pm UTC
I was actually going to ask about this. - [info]slimshadowen, 2005-07-09 03:33 am UTC

[info]tavalya_ra
2005-06-28 02:05 am UTC (link)
I have two geniuses. One is a polygult who understands very well how different languages develop and the relationships between the languages that exist in his world. He can only translate new languages he encounters if they are related to the languages he already knows. (He would have no context from which to decipher English or any of our languages without learning a few of them first. And if he learns European languages, he still won't be able to make much headway on Chinese.) He's continuing someone else's project and his conclusions are greatly influenced by his mentor's beliefs and the beliefs of others his mentor told him he ought to admire. He spends much time at court (not by choice), where his hobby of studying dead languages is considered quaint; his skills aren't as prized as they might be since global communication has lead to a global language.

The other is an inventor; he's very good at math, phsyics, and understanding the science of magic. Much of his inspiration comes from scientists' ideas; he figures out a way to make whatever it possible, assuming it is possible. His people skills suck, mostly because he thinks most problems can be dealt with by killing the individual responsible and that he idolizes his brother. If you aren't his brother and you aren't helping his brother (sometimes even if you are), you aren't worth his time and you are easily expendible.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]the_s_guy
2005-06-28 03:33 am UTC (link)
Now I have a mental image of people scurrying through his demesne carrying little protective signs on sticks saying "X's brother is really great! We love to help him! He's the best" etc, and trying to use them to fend off any sudden mad-inventor attacks.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]tavalya_ra, 2005-06-28 05:31 pm UTC

[info]blunder_buss
2005-06-28 04:30 am UTC (link)
Here is one big fat flaw for a genius - make them a savant. Savant Syndrome is where a person has mental retardation, but is extremely good at one skill. They might have the IQ of 60, but can calculate mass amounts of numbers in a second or have amazing artist skill, even without any schooling. There's been heaps of famous geniuses that were savants.

So what I think would make an awesome character, is a savant who can perform extremely complex magic or artistic skill, but still not be able to do something like write correctly. THAT is interesting.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2005-06-28 07:27 pm UTC (link)
I've seen savants before. I don't think the limitations go far enough. For example, why would someone bring a savant who couldn't take care of himself on a dangerous fantasy journey where speed is essential, instead of a slightly less intelligent genius who could still work math fast, take care of himself, and respond when you talked to him?

An author could do the best job, I think, by coming up with a plausible reason to have this character in the book, and then treating him plausibly. No magical talents to make up for it, like the crippled characters who get magical prosthetic limbs to make up for any lack of abillity.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Oh! - [info]bain_drenal, 2005-06-29 02:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]blunder_buss, 2005-07-02 12:45 pm UTC

[info]criada
2005-06-28 06:20 am UTC (link)
>>The writer might tell me that the character’s a genius at poetry, and then the first atrociously rhymed poem which doesn’t scan comes along and I’ll laugh my ass off.<<

The way I (hopefully) solved this one, is by having half the characters think the poems are genius, and half think they're stupid and don't get them. There are a lot of poems out there that I don't see why everyone thinks they're so great, but they're supposed to be masterpieces. So I'm content to decide if my/mycharacter's poems are genius or pretentious. :) I personally like my poetry, and my friends seem too, but I don't want to claim they're genius.

(Reply to this)


[info]mrissa
2005-06-28 11:32 am UTC (link)
(I'm here from [info]yhlee.)

The danger of #3 is that showing your reader a talent the reader will appreciate but most of the characters will not gets awfully...nauseating, sometimes. "She is a genius, but no one appreciates her!" was all right when I was 13, but it feels now like it's pandering excessively hard to lonely 13-year-olds.

The writer might tell me that the character’s a genius at poetry, and then the first atrociously rhymed poem which doesn’t scan comes along and I’ll laugh my ass off.

And also speaking of my adolescence: when I was 12, I thought Anne McCaffrey was worldbuilding when she went on about how Mennolly's lame songs were the best thing in the whole world OMG so kewl. I thought she was going to have her people run into a civilization with actual music and have it shake their world to the foundation. When this did not happen, I lost interest in the books and wandered off.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2005-06-28 07:29 pm UTC (link)
The danger of #3 is that showing your reader a talent the reader will appreciate but most of the characters will not gets awfully...nauseating, sometimes. "She is a genius, but no one appreciates her!" was all right when I was 13, but it feels now like it's pandering excessively hard to lonely 13-year-olds.

There's a wide ground between fawning adoration and sheer hatred or jealousy, which I think is what a lot of authors forget (and why I tried to mention multiple examples in point 3). There's also the people in the community being simply indifferent, or thinking the talent is great for some reason other than a modern audience would. That's why I think authors need to build in some plausible story-based reason for the genius to be recognized, or yes, it does just come off as inviting the audience along to whine.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]packbat
2005-06-28 01:39 pm UTC (link)
The sonneteer in a temple who grows up learning in the temple school and composing sonnets in praise of her goddess is something else again. Perhaps all the formal, written prayers before that were in ottava rima The priestesses might wonder, might compare the sonnets with the old prayers and nod, might resist adopting them and start an academic and theological schism over whether the new prayers or the older ones are better. But there, as well as recognizing her poetic genius, the priestesses would have the concerns of theology to weigh them against, and whether or not these new poems honored the goddess.

Wow – I really want to read this story.

Good rant.

(Reply to this)


[info]l_clausewitz
2005-06-28 02:08 pm UTC (link)
Argh? I'm an Asperger, and I know what being (something of) a genius is like. The points of your rant are mostly common sense, and it really irks me that so many writers just miss them like...well, like bad fantasy writers do. I agree with [info]goblin_11 in that geniuses tend to have a range of interest extending beyond just one particular topic--I've rarely seen a math geek who doesn't also have a hankering for poetry, history, or gastronomy, for example. However, you're completely right in that geniuses should not be (and are not) as omnipotent as they're often depicted in bad fantasy.

I think it would be great if you could also explore the different concepts of "genius" in different cultures. In many Western cultures the "genius" stereotype id the "absent-minded professor" thing with great intelligence but poor social skills, but down here in the East people really expect geniuses to be good at everything including social interaction. It's like you don't qualify as a genius unless you're both intelligent and socially adept (the "top kid in the class" type), and if people see you as a genius you should at least try to fulfill both criteria. Strictly speaking, that's often unrealistic, but precisely because of that I could extract much conflict material from that discrepancy.

This goes back to #2, of course. It makes no sense to create a genius without referring to his/her cultural and educational background. By the way, somebody doesn't qualify as a military genius unles he/she is good in strategy and tactics and administration and personal leadership. Hannibal did not only win at Cannae; he also managed to maintain his mercenaries for fourteen years in the middle of hostile territory through a combination of good administration and great personal charisma. Alexander, too, was an excellent bureaucrat in addition to being an expert strategist and brilliant tactician, and of course he was one hell of a brave and charismatic leader.

I'd better stop before I end up with a 10,000-word rant on Caesar and Cao Cao and Zhao Yun and Samory Toure and Khalid ibn al-Walid and Sennacherib and Subedei and all those weird people. BTW, I'm planning to post a short "class" on historical warfare, in case you're interested to take a peek.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2005-06-28 07:33 pm UTC (link)
I mentioned in the comment to [info]goblin11 why I find multi-talented geniuses less plausible in some fantasy worlds than others, so I'll just say that, the more talents the author piles on the genius's head, the more suspicious I become. So, okay, he has to be good at math and music to get involved in the plot at all, which involves a cabal among the musicians who are writing secret codes about bringing down the king into their songs. And maybe you could also say that he needs to be good at riddles and history, to figure out the obscure references in the code. But why would he need to also just happen to be good at diplomacy, court politics, sword-fighting, and breaking and entering? Let the other characters have a role in the plot, please. One character does not have to do everything.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]l_clausewitz, 2005-06-29 02:20 pm UTC

[info]pico_the_great
2005-06-28 03:47 pm UTC (link)
make her a genius at everything

There are people like this: not necessarily geniuses, but they maintaina 4.0+ GPA while being in three sports, president of five clubs, in two others, tutoring small children to read, helping at a soup kitchen, holding a job, and being an officer in the SGA. They're nice, they're popluar, they're smart, and they're the apples of teachers' eyes, and the envy of half the kids in teh school. They are living Mary Sues.

But ther'ye not necessarily geniuses.

#2: Standing on the shoulders of giants?

So, of course, close beside lack of empathy runs arrogance.

I think that lack of empathy, at times, is mistaken for arrogance. The simple fact that a person isn't in tune with the fact that other people think differently might, if s/he doesn't convey this, come across as not caring what other people think.

There’s also obsession.

I thank you for having just sprung a new plot-idea. Obsession combined with a siege and a certain disregard for the enemy commanding officer's power, and all of this because the king lord/land-owning-noble doesn't want to sacrifice economic prosperity for warfare.

Thanks for the rant again. I don't tend to do too much in the way of genius characters, but this has been interesting to read.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2005-06-28 07:37 pm UTC (link)
But ther'ye not necessarily geniuses.

Nope. And they don't necessarily have no unattractive traits, and if someone dislikes them, it's not necessarily just because of jealousy. I find "You're jealous!" as a motive very tired. If an author really wants a character like this, I think she needs to work her flaws in there, even introduce the protagonist through unattractive qualities at first. If not, the character is a Mary Sue because she has no flaws at all.

And yay for the plot-idea!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]bneuensc
2005-06-28 05:46 pm UTC (link)
Re: #1, I can think of two instances of more-or-less omnicompetent geniuses who manage to not be insufferable. One is in the TV series Firefly, where River is brilliant beyond belief and can do music and math and dance and literature and whatever you want her to including shooting people with her eyes closed and now she's telepathic, too -- and by the time you meet her in the series, she's also batshit crazy and needs constant watching or she gets into trouble. Combine that with an extremely strong ensemble cast, and she becomes an excellent randomizing element, rather than a cure-all plot device.

The other is Lymond in Dorothy Dunnett's series of historical novels. He's had a fantastic education, so he's very skilled in both personal combat and military endeavours, plays music beautifully, and speaks an impressive number of languages. I don't find his genius irritating because he still, despite his amazingness, runs into situations that screw him over (with consequences including both death of loved ones and Severe Bodily Harm to himself, along with a variety of others). Also, he's often morally ambiguous and behaves like a complete prick to the people around him as a part of carrying out whatever his Brilliant Plan is.

Omnicompetence can be done. But it's hard.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2005-06-28 07:41 pm UTC (link)
I think it's still a fine line with those characters. I have seen discussion from someone who finds River insufferable (even though I've never watched the show, I read the discussion because I'm always interested in where the line lies for other people between "neat character" and "canon Mary Sue"), and I've tried to read the Lymond series and been driven batshit insane by the writing style.

No author is going to create a character who appeals to everyone, of course; that's true across the board. But genius characters who have wonderful trait after wonderful trait- especially if the traits are things that no other character in that universe can do, or explicitly break the author's stated rules- the fawning adoration of the people around them, and only one flaw (which often isn't a character trait, but the result of a traumatic experience) make me start wondering exactly why the author wanted someone like that, what she hoped to accomplish. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to let other people have some of the credit, too?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]bneuensc, 2005-06-28 08:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]farmercuerden, 2005-07-06 01:25 pm UTC

[info]marikochan
2005-06-28 06:35 pm UTC (link)
*waves* Friended you so that I'd have a more reliable way of getting your rants than waiting for [info]yhlee to link to them.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]limyaael
2005-06-28 07:42 pm UTC (link)
Hi. *friends back* Glad you're enjoying the rants.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]dicewarriors
2005-06-28 08:15 pm UTC (link)
I just think I would run into problems trying to recreate the thought process of a genius, seeing as how I'm not one...yet ;P. But I havn't came up with any story ideas involving one yet so its cool.

Hi by the way, my name is John. I'm new here.

(Reply to this)


[info]becchael
2005-06-29 02:34 am UTC (link)
Hey. :) Just wanted to comment on the rant and introduce myself. My name is Rachael and I just friended you to make the information more easily accessible. I don't know how I ended up here, but I'm glad I did because it inspired me to take a serious look into the fiction I'm plotting out in my head.

This rant, in particular, caused me to look at my own genius character with a bit of suspicion. I guess his genius is justified - but boring and cliche, nonetheless.

He is an immortal who attempts to combat his boredom by learning talents and collecting knowledge. He is also particularly in tune with other people's emotions and sensitivities, in part because he has had experience in reading people and also in part because he's somewhat empathic.

But... I really didn't want him to fit the mold of yet another "mentor" character. One who gets the protagonists out of rough spots with a nudge in what he mysteriously knows to be the right direction simply because he's the old wise guy. So, in order to make my character a bit less annoyingly omniscient, I decided to make him not really all that intelligent and particularly inept at explaining things. His age has given him time to pick up his many talents, but he isn't a fast learner by normal standards and he only succeeded at mastering them because of ennui and patience. In addition, because he isn't actually all that intelligent, simply wise, he has a hard time explaining to others how he knows what he knows. He isn't a rational learner, therefore he can't explain things in a straight-forward, rational manner. To him things simply are what they are.

I think that will create an interesting stumbling block, but will not undermind his wisdom either. Though, I guess I simply avoided the problem all-together by not making him a genius after all.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sailor_tech
2005-06-29 03:16 am UTC (link)
You didn't mention what level of tech you are dealing with, or maybe more importantly, how fast tech is changing in your story.

Maybe he is expert at driving a car, but has to ask his passenger for help in using the self-serve credit card gas pump. He's mastered a tech that has been around for decades, but can't handle something that has been around for only 8 or 9 years.

Or he nudges the character with old info. The info lets the character solve the problem, but at a disadvantage. The character realizes aftewards that they could have saved a lot of time or effort if done differently. Not because they know what should have been done, but that the directions or nudge had extra info / steps.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]becchael, 2005-06-29 05:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dicewarriors, 2005-06-29 04:01 am UTC

[info]kadaria
2005-06-30 04:42 pm UTC (link)
I don't know if this will play in at all but some of the 'brighter' people I have known in my life time, aside from the stereotype of lacking social skills and assuming that everyone can do what they do, I've noticed a distinct lack of common sense.
This lack can be annoying but ok (my sister driving the worng way for an hour just turns around and drives back) or dangerous (boy picks up cemistry crucible with bare hands, friend sets herself on fire because she forgot about a bunsen burner).
I'm not sure where this lack of common sense stems from, but it seems to occur in the 'genius-types' I know.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]seawolf10
2005-07-01 11:30 am UTC (link)
Eeesh, tell me about it. I qualify as a genius, but I've got that lack of common sense you speak of, especially when I'm tired. There are so many examples I could cite...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]megpie71
2005-07-05 02:34 pm UTC (link)
If you're looking for a good examples of flawed genius, or at least highly intelligent flawed people, might I direct you toward the BBC TV series "Blake's 7"?

In this we have:

* The leader who is obsessed, pig-headed, and who tends to ignore all opposing points of view.
* A certifiable computer genius who is also bloody-minded, arrogant, lacks empathy to a startling degree, and has a very strong tendency to point out the failings of others.
* A cowardly thief who is brilliant with locks, but who doesn't like bloodshed or hard work

Three different types of genius (one personal, one physical, one intellectual) and all of them with flaws which would make them impossible to live with for longer than a fortnight without wanting to put something lethal in their coffee.

(Reply to this)

Hmmm..
[info]karenrei
2006-03-13 11:45 pm UTC (link)
"This might be by indirect description rather than actual transcription, especially if you yourself do not share the talent. You might talk about the effect that a political orator’s speech has on his audience, for example, rather than writing it out."

Or, perhaps, carving a statue that converts people from socialism to capitalism? :)

(Reply to this)


[info]faeriesluver9
2006-06-25 01:33 am UTC (link)
Number 4. Oh dear. *turns red in remembrance*
But having two characters like that meet is always fun because all the things that annoy other people about them, one genius will find annoying in the other, mostly because they realize they're probably alot like that two. which makes for interesting rivalries. Not that i know from experience.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]faeriesluver9
2006-06-25 01:34 am UTC (link)
too. I used my spelling and grammer icon, and then the wrong form of too. And completely ignored capitalization.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]nndaia
2009-07-26 08:23 am UTC (link)
Can anybody say "Richard Rahl"?

He's a Seeker, a genius at "seeking the truth", which of course gives him license to pull random information out of thin air and combine it in ways that make no sense with 100% accuracy. (Unless he's being made deliberately stupid for plot reasons, in which case he'll ignore something obvious, like TURNING INTO A FREAKING LIZARD PERSON.) He was a woods guide, which means that he's an expert at everything to do with animals. Tracking, that's fair enough (although planning an elaborate kidnapping plot involving world-changing magic and somebody that noone can remember might be extrapolating a little much from a single overturned rock), but what does being a woods guide (keeping in mind that he only travels through the woods on foot) have to do with knowing anything about domesticated horses? Oh, and his ability to "understand the jargon of symbols", that lets him instantly see the meaning in just about everything from prophecy to spellforms.

My personal favourite is his genius with "blades". Which, of course, makes him an extremely good swordfighter even without the whole magic dance-with-death thing, because apparently swordfighting is just a matter of cutting the other guy with the edge. And a genius carver, because chisels and rasps are blades, so he must know all about the most difficult marble cutting techniques since blades are used to do them. I want to see someone who's a genius with "wheels" create an automobile now.

(Reply to this)


(55 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…