Can a Non-Genius Write a Convincing Genius Character?

[cybernetichero]

I love Sherlock Holmes, especially The Hound of the Baskervilles but with reservations. His reliance on Physiognomy in the early stories for a start but maybe Holmes himself became disillusioned with the theory as research progressed and Conan Doyle himself was famously taken in by schoolgirls over the Cottingley Fairies business. I'm not saying CD was a dolt but I don't think I ever heard him called a tested genius although Holmes claims an IQ of 190. And then there's Moriarty...
So can a merely bright person (convincingly) write a genius character?

 

[russ_watters]

So can a merely bright person (convincingly) write a genius character?

Why not? What does writing have to do with being?

 

[cybernetichero]

What does writing have to do with being?

An idiot savant can memorize a massive amount or calculate pi to a million places but a genius also has great insight. In the example above where Holmes nabs crooks thanks to the "science" of cranial physiognomy, which was always pseudoscience, if Holmes was a real genius and made a study of it he would have seen through it but since Conan Doyle was just merely clever and NOT a genius it makes it's way into early stories though it doesn't get mentioned after the 1890s.

 

[DaveC426913]

Your physiognomy makes a good counter example but it only shows authors are not infallible.

It doesn't negate the conjecture that an intelligent author can create a genius character.

Simply : the author is god, and can choreograph events in a way - as well as know the hearts and minds of characters - that only a genius could divine.

Genius deduction certainly does not require invocation of speculative sciences. He could have left that out.

 

[PAllen]

Also, many undisputed geniuses have believed what later would be considered nonsense obvious to much lesser intellects. A clear example is any modern student of high school chemistry would understand that alchemy couldn't possibly work, while Newton pursued it with vigor. Thus, it is not automatically implausible that a historic genius might take phsysiognomy seriously.

 

[Rive]

So can a merely bright person (convincingly) write a genius character?

Sure. He does not have to beat all his future readers in science of all times: he has to convince only his own (!) readers that his character is a genius. Completely different matter.

That time some pseudoscience could do the trick: these times it takes lots of 'quantum' (context relevant technobabble).

It's still the same. Selling the charcter with something convincing.

Honestly, by the standards of this time most of the reasoning in the Sherlock Holmes stories are just thick BS, and Ms. Marple could do far better.

 

[DaveC426913]

. Thus, it is not automatically implausible that a historic genius might take phsysiognomy seriously.

While that may be true, it might make for an uphill battle convincing modern readers that the character is indeed a genius, and not some quaint high functioning quack.

 

[Algr]

I immediately thought of the new Doctor Who series for examples of what can go wrong with a "genius" being written by someone who is far from it. You can look past the science in some contexts, but when something plainly wrong is the "solution" to the story's main crisis, it is awful.

This is followed by the other characters fawning over how brilliant the Doctor is, and a tacked on moral argument that only works because the author controls the opposing viewpoint. Solution: Only write what you know. And get help with what you don't.

Edit:

was always pseudoscience, if Holmes was a real genius and made a study of it he would have seen through it

There are some ideas that are perfectly reasonable at first, and only become pseudoscience once enough research has been done to disprove it. (and people cling to it anyway.). For example: The Flat Earth model is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis for someone who lived four thousand years ago in a farming vilage. It matches everything that that person can ever observe. Flat Earth runs into trouble when you develop mathematics, writing, and long distance travel. And it becomes truly egregious when the idea starts spreading using technologies that can't work on a flat earth, such as ship navigation.

 

[arivero]

Can we speak Patois if God does not speak this language?

 

[mfb]

A genius can propose the right answer with little evidence - potentially as one of many possible answers at that time. An author can start with the right answer and then decide how much their fictional genius needs to discover. They can also give them just the right amount of evidence to rule out all other options.

 

[cybernetichero]

Ms. Marple could do far better.

Poirot gives you the death stare.

 

[Dr Wu]

Yes, of course you can. An example: you don't have to be a Mozart to write about a fictional musical genius, say. But you do need to write convincingly - i.e. describe your character's compositions in ways that persuade the reader that they are truly the works of a genius. Having a love and knowledge of music would probably be indispensable here. That doesn't require you to be a genius, of course. Being a good writer will suffice.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, of course you can. An example: you don't have to be a Mozart to write about a fictional musical genius, say.

I don't think that's quite the same thing (though I am at a loss to elaborate).

 

[Algr]

I don't think that's quite the same thing (though I am at a loss to elaborate).

I agree. You don't actually hear the music in your writing - you just have to go by what the author says. But if your genius detective says something makes sense when it doesn't, or fails to take into account another possibility, then your story fails.

One example; In Dr Who: Kill the Moon, the Doctor condemns humanity's paranoia for fearing the creature inside the egg. But this is a series where hostile aliens invade Earth every week. And what we see at the end of the story would have wiped out all life on Earth.

So a writer can rely on someone else to provide music, but not logic. Write what you know.

 

[hutchphd]

So can a merely bright person (convincingly) write a genius character?

Unfortunately I am unable to answer the question...thats all I care to say...

 

[DaveC426913]

So a writer can rely on someone else to provide music, but not logic.

Yes, this is what I was trying to say.

 

[mfb]

I would say the writer doesn't have to provide music. They can describe their music as being great without ever needing to provide great music. This would be different for a movie, where viewers would expect to hear some music. To accept a detective as genius the reader wants to see some of their work. Just writing they are a genius isn't doing much.

 

[Dr Wu]

I would say the writer doesn't have to provide music. They can describe their music as being great without ever needing to provide great music. This would be different for a movie, where viewers would expect to hear some music. To accept a detective as genius the reader wants to see some of their work. Just writing they are a genius isn't doing much

That is a telling point: portraying a musical genius on film without including any of his or her music would be quite an ask (although still not inconceivable). Much the same could be said about pictorial art, with reference to the medium of film. On the written page, however, the possibilities are truly limitless. . . as limitless as the human imagination, in fact.

So aside from Holmes and Poirot, are there any other instances where the trick of describing a fictitious genius has been achieved? A few random examples (in both film and literature) spring to mind - Victor Frankenstein in Dr Frankenstein, Hari Seldon in The Foundation series, Joseph Knech in The Glass Bead Game, Gurgeh in The Player of Games, Emmett Brown in Back to the Future, Tony Stark in Iron Man, Will Hunting in Good Will Hunting. . . even Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings? Yes, there's at least one Nobel prize winner among that lot. Nevertheless, if one believes that the label "genius" really only applies to a handful of people in history - Homer, Socrates, Leonardo, Shakespeare, Newton, etc - then the conclusion is that it is possible to create genius characters without being one oneself.

 

[Rive]

So aside from Holmes and Poirot, are there any other instances where the trick of describing a fictitious genius has been achieved?

Well, it can be discussed if it's achieved or not, but as a honorable try you can add Frank Herbert or Orson Scott Card to the list. Both has many characters with too much brain (I mean, too much to be anything realistic).

 

[DaveC426913]

It is more than just saying 'this guy's a genius at x'.

The reader usually expects to be able to follow along with the logic of the logical genius. Not so with the music of the musical genius (in a story).

So, the question becomes, can a non-genius author write a logical sequence of events that only a genius could unravel, while facilitating the reader's vicarious shoulder-piloting.

 

[PeroK]

It is more than just saying 'this guy's a genius at x'.

The reader usually expects to be able to follow along with the logic of the logical genius. Not so with the music of the musical genius (in a story).

So, the question becomes, can a non-genius author write a logical sequence of events that only a genius could unravel, while facilitating the reader's vicarious shoulder-piloting.

I really don't see the argument at all. A prime example would be Regeneration by Pat Barker. She presents a totally convincing (fictionalised) portrayal of W. H. R. Rivers, without herself being a leading academic in the field of neuroscience or psychiatry.

And, how does she do this? By being a brilliant writer!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._H._R._Rivers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Barker

 

[DaveC426913]

I really don't see the argument at all.

I don't disagree with you. My opinion, recorded above, states that I think it's possible.

I just think some of the attempted logic - eg. comparing it to music - is not correct.

 

[Algr]

Victor Frankenstein in Dr Frankenstein, Hari Seldon in The Foundation series, Emmett Brown in Back to the Future, Tony Stark in Iron Man, . even Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings?

I edited out the ones I haven't seen. When these characters are "being genius" they are doing things that the audience doesn't quite see the details of. How does psychohistory or a flux capacitor work? It's tangential to those stories. Consequently, the solution to the primary conflict in these stories can't really involve those subjects, except in a tangential way that needs to be spelled out early on and can't change. In Back to the Future, the technical issue is quickly boiled down to "We need to catch the lightning that hit that tower."

Of course this doesn't free writers from the need to have some serious intelligence of their own. They still need to understand what mistakes a genius could reasonably make, and what turns the "science" into plot-convenience nonsense.

 

[Dr Wu]

Of course this doesn't free writers from the need to have some serious intelligence of their own. They still need to understand what mistakes a genius could reasonably make, and what turns the "science" into plot-convenience nonsense.

This is one of the factors that separates great fiction writing from the not so great. There are, for example, glaring shortfalls in the science of Dr Frankenstein, especially adjudged by today's standards. But for this reader at least that doesn't lessen the novel's impact as a work of fiction. Neither does it (in my view) lessen Mary Shelley's treatment of her protagonist as a tragic genius. Partly this is due to the writing itself. But it also results from the novel's abiding concerns, in particular the pursuit of knowledge at all costs - a theme which given our present concerns about the possible future trajectories of AI, implant technology etc, perhaps makes the story even more relevant to us today than when it was written.*

DaveC426913 - I had assumed the poster was referring to written fiction, not film. Assuming this for the sake of argument, describing a "genius level" piece of fictitious music should be no more problematic to a competent writer than describing a fast flyby around a neutron star. The scenery may differ, but the raw materials remain the same: words and the power of imagination.

* e.g. Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow by Yuval Noah Harari.

 

[mpresic3]

Daniel Keyes wrote Flowers for Algernon, and I think he is talented, but probably not a genius,in the sense of Newton, Einstein, Mozart or one of that crowd. Walter Tevis wrote, The Queen's Gambit, without being a world class chess player, and the Hustler, without being an exceptional Billiard player. Seems like there are a lot of stories about exceptional people (real and fictional), written by authors without a large amount of expertise in the area of genius they write about. Even flaws in the story perhaps noted by genius's probably do not detract from the enjoyment received by their readership.

 

[PeroK]

To change the subject slighty. You can usually tell when a writer does know something about chess by the way he/she writes about it, and the ones who are just making it all up. It's also sad to see some celebrities pretending they can play chess when they can't. Here's a photo of Usain Bolt playing chess, with a totally nonsensical position (the white king, for example, has been captured!):

 

[Jarvis323]

I'm not sure that someone who was exposed to the logic of a genius would recognize it as genius. It might be the other way around. People just won't understand it at all, and it will likely appear as non-sense. Meanwhile, logic that is challenging enough for them to get it if they try really hard might be what appears as genius, because it is something they can appreciate.

Einstein's works of genius for example, are a constant target of attack by crackpots who think it's absurd. While Einsteins genius in the public view is established through mundane, often misattributed quotes and funny hair. Ultimately, most people think Einstein was a genius because he is said to have been one, and he apparently discovered some
important things.

So I guess, you probably can't satisfy everyone if your goal is to portray a work of genius being done, even if you were a genius writer. You might be able to convince a genius that the characters work is genius, when it actually is. But how many geniuses will read it? In the meantime, the genius you wrote for the general public will appear elementary to a 'real' genius. And it's all relative anyway. So who is to say what a genius is? Some hypothetical intelligence out there may see Einstein as unimpressive.

Unless, you intermix different levels of pseudo and 'real' genius into the writing so that it appears to everyone, at one point that the character is genius. In one scene they invent sliced bread, and in another they invent relativity.

 

[Dr Wu]

As a riff on #10, a related suggestion would be to choose a high achiever from history — a military genius like Alexander the Great, for instance — and import this person’s alta ego into a wholly different context or milieu, that's to say far removed from the usual superhero trumpery. In straight SF terms one example to illustrate the point would be to have two or more highly gifted members of an alien race competing to get to the bottom of E = mc² — for whatever dramatic reasons demanded by the plot. There are, of course, numerous variations to this approach. (Just exactly what would Aristotle have made of SR?)

So there it is: a well-honed, off-the-shelf piece of physics available for the writer to plunder and recycle in whatever forms he or she sees fit. That might seem a bit of a cheat, but to paraphrase TS Eliot’s well known aphorism, it’s worth pointing out that while “immature writers imitate, mature writers steal.” By using Einstein’s ready-made equation (and the rest of the theory) in a suitably original and imaginative way, it could, given a fair wind, render the mature writer happily guilty as charged. The bottom line here, of course, is that as far as the science is concerned the heavy lifting is already done. This means that the writer can be just a writer again.

The only (rather poor) example of the above that comes to mind at present, certainly in the SF genre, is the 1950s film Forbidden Planet. True, its science (and hammy characterisation) is pretty much representative of its time, in some ways a forerunner to early Star Trek, in fact. What the film still has going for it, though, albeit in ghostly outline, is its clever usurpation of The Tempest plot, in particular the way the film’s lead character/antagonist inverts the protagonist in Shakespeare’s play. For Dr Morbius read Prospero. A personal bleat: while the business of churning out sequels/retreads of Independence Day and its ilk is necessarily following the money, it would make a welcome change if a film studio with some loot behind it did a radical and artful second take on (say) The Tempest — I mean Forbidden Planet. If so, get the science right this time, or as right as it can be. Oh, and don’t forget the Bard!

 

[PeroK]

it would make a welcome change if a film studio with some loot behind it did a radical and artful second take on (say) The Tempest — I mean Forbidden Planet.

There's Return to the Forbidden Planet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_the_Forbidden_Planet

 

[Dr Wu]

There's Return to the Forbidden Planet:

Well, I never!

 

[mpresic3]

Usain Bolt in the picture looks like he is playing checkers with the chess pieces.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Usain Bolt in the picture looks like he is playing checkers with the chess pieces.

Wow, you totally called it.

 

[jbriggs444]

Wow, you totally called it.

And it is still a nonsensical position. White is making its second move before black has moved once.

 

[mpresic3]

That is OK. I think unlike chess, the dark pieces move first in checkers?

 

[DaveC426913]

 

[Stephen Tashi]

.So can a merely bright person (convincingly) write a genius character?

Are you talking about convincing readers who are non-geniuses?

 

[Paul Colby]

Genius is really a label that’s meaningful only in retrospect. I think there are acts or contributions of genius, as people not so much. There are many very smart people who never contribute anything of note.