Still thinking about Sherlock, but this is a more general question...

[magnetic_pole]

I had an interesting exchange with donnaimmaculata on Monday about our frustrations with Sherlock and the way the show treats his "cleverness" as a superpower, which in turn got me thinking a bit about the various types of intelligence, and how they manifest themselves, and how you can depict them in fic.

So my question for you, flist, is this: is there someone in your life who's particularly bright in one way or another, and how can you tell? How would you go about representing that kind of intelligence in a fic? And/or, if you've written fic about a particularly bright person, how did you represent that aspect of their character?

Comments

[mecurtin]

I have known a good many *extremely* intelligent people over the years. If they have a distinguishing quality, it's that they're *thinking* a lot -- more than they're talking, even if they seem to talk constantly.

This means they often seem distracted or "out of it". And then when they "tune in" again, what they say doesn't always seem to connect with the last step in the conversation -- because they've already gone past those steps in their brains.

BBC!Sherlock is pretty good at showing that quality. What they don't show is how for v.v. smart people coming up with the "right answer" is also a matter of trial-and-error (we call that "science"), it's just that they run most of the trials in their brains and very quickly.

Sherlock Holmes (whichever version) has a *social* intelligence, or at least an intelligence about human behavior and motivation. This means that he ought to spend a great deal of time observing human beings, coming up with theories about them and discarding them as new observations come along. ACD!Sherlock does two kinds of observation: reading newspapers, especially the "agony columns", and dressing up (as one sort of not-so-upper-class person or another) and immersing himself in various social contexts. Neither modern Sherlock is a master of disguise, which is a kind of odd choice: why *not* show your actor acting?

[magnetic_pole]

BBC!Sherlock is pretty good at showing that quality. What they don't show is how for v.v. smart people coming up with the "right answer" is also a matter of trial-and-error (we call that "science"), it's just that they run most of the trials in their brains and very quickly.

*nods* And, ironically, seeing the process makes it more believable to me. I feel like some of the earlier episodes, with their slower pacing, allowed for more trial-and-error in Sherlock's methods, which brought me on board. The faster episodes seem to arrive at an answer too quickly. I think it may be because there's a certain something to seeing when you're wrong, or adjusting an answer to make it fit. Seeing Sherlock right all the time, immediately, makes his deductions seem more like a trick.

I'm with you on the social intelligence, which is one reason why this version doesn't always work for me. And the disguises--yes! I'm not sure why they haven't gone there very often. M.

[delphi]

Hm. It now occurs to me that I don't think I've ever tried writing a character smarter than I am, partially because of my frustration about how intelligence tends to be portrayed in the media.

(Although I was once taken aback to get a beta note on a story expressing horror at the sociopathy of a certain character whose actions I hadn't intended to be read as particularly negative, and while I did change the story, my first reaction was: "Wait, no, he's just the sort of clever person who's always thinking about all the possibilities in the world, and being able to conceive of unpleasant things doesn't mean you condone them - it just means you're not capable of not imagining them.")

I've admired a lot of technologically/mechanically bright people - the sort of natural engineers and inventors who were building rocket launchers in high school and who I would want on my side if society ever collapses - and I think one of their defining characteristics as a group would be confidence. They were people accustomed to problem-solving (something that either made them very good listeners when it came to others or very bad ones) and who went into daunting situations with the attitude that they could figure them out.

I've also known several people who were usually the smartest person in any room they found themselves in. Some were deeply uncomfortable with that fact; they always assumed that whoever they were talking to was at least as smart as them, if not smarter, and then were stymied by the lack of logic when that was proven false. Those who knew they were the smartest person in the room often fell into two camps.

First, there were those easily frustrated by people less quick or perceptive than they were. They tended to assume what people they were interacting with were going to say, and they were usually right, but it made them insufferable to deal with when they were wrong. They could be very impatient, wanting those around them to skip to the foregone conclusion. Their intelligence was very externally focused; they paid close attention when their own knowledge was involved and tuned out visibly when they didn't feel challenged or authoritative. They were also the kind who would play little conversational games to gauge the intelligence of someone they had just met.

The other kind were people who had learned to cope with being the smartest person in the room by cultivating a deep appreciation for absurdity. They had learned that intelligence does not actually grant you any meaningful power or authority in this world, and so there was nothing to do but laugh or look on the bright side or err towards kindness when life kicked you in the knee. Their data intake wasn't fettered by ego, and they were always willing to be surprised by others.

[magnetic_pole]

I'm intrigued by all the contradictions here, D--the engineering types who are either good listeners or bad, the bright people who are frustrated by others and the ones who are open to surprise. I feel as if the more I think about the topic, the less certain I am about anything--everything ultimately seems to dissolve into (or at least get mediated through) personality traits or coping mechanisms. And perhaps that's life--nothing appears unmediated.

On a completely different note--well actually a related note (intelligence = relative, contingent, no absolutes, only differences in specific contexts, kind of like physical attractiveness)--I'm SO HAPPY to see Beholder back again this spring! It's always one of the highlights of the fannish year for me. M.

[delphi]

Ha - yes, I suppose I didn't give any kind of meaningful answer there. But that ties into my principal annoyance/puzzlement with how intelligence is portrayed on TV. Outside of certain wise old mentor roles (wisdom being something different from intelligence, in tropes) intelligence is almost always paired with being seriously deficient in the social or emotional sphere somehow, either endearingly or frustratingly. But besides the fact that very high intelligence invites comment and notice and usually requires the person in possession of it to develop some sort of social coping mechanism, people are people. No one, no matter how intelligent, acts solely by conscious thought. Patience, impatience, curiosity, timidity, risk-seeking, insecurity, extroversion, introversion, emotional range...so many other genetic and environmental outcomes contribute to how we use our strengths and weaknesses in memory and language and reasoning.

But: I'm glad you're happy to see Beholder back! I hope you'll be signing up. :-)

[magnetic_pole]

No, no, I didn't mean that as a criticism of your response! I was just fascinated by the way that you took the descriptions somewhere else every time, which got me thinking again about how weirdly adrift I feel on this issue.

And absolutely! :) M.

[delphi]

It's an interesting topic. I'm actually in the process of reading through the Enola Holmes books again recently and am now doubly appreciating how the Holmes family is portrayed there - with the extra difficulty that the books are actually from the clever character's point of view. First-person POV is certainly one cure for intelligence-as-superpower in fiction.

[magnetic_pole]

First-person POV is certainly one cure for intelligence-as-superpower in fiction. :)

I'm skimming through the old Beholder master lists right now, getting excited... M.

[delphi]

I'm very happy to be running it, but I do miss writing for Beholder sometimes.

[magnetic_pole]

And we miss your fics. M.

[scarletsymphony]

I'm a bit late to this party, hope you don't mind, but this question got me thinking.

The smartest woman I know is my mother. She is cognitively -- unparalleled, basically, when I try to compare her to others I've known. She got the equivalent of straight A's in an education system where it's extremely difficult to do so and she's just quicker at what I like to call "mind tricks" (calculation in her head, stuff like that).

If I had to think of my mother as a narrative she'd probably fit your standard "intelligence has a price; it's a gift that gives and takes something away in return" trope. My mother's intelligence is probably one of the few things about her that I can speak on with unequivocal positivity.

(Actually, despite how much I cringed through the first episode -- seriously, it felt like the Iron Man 3 of the Sherlock franchise, trying way too hard, self referential on max, and not actually funny -- the bit where Sherlock talks about feeling like an idiot when he only knew his brother twanged true in a bit of my soul. :D)

Anyway, onto your question -- her intelligence manifests in disguise. She hides how smart she is. She deliberately allows herself to fall into illogical patterns of thought she's picked up from elsewhere, and we've had enough, er, heated discussions, that I know she's aware of it. I honestly can't say why she does it, but I've observed similar things in other intelligent women/girls I've known growing up. When I was younger, this kind of thing annoyed me, and being the incredibly tactful, empathetic person I was I'd say stuff like "You're smart but you're pretend you're not. It's annoying, I don't like it, you should stop." That usually led to some pretty spectacular, ah, discourse.

As I've grown, I realize I've done this myself, sometimes -- people will say more and reveal more if they assume you're not very smart. Smart makes people uncomfortable, especially smart girls. Not, for the record, that I think that I am significantly above average, but there's enough of a margin between where I am and Not Very Smart that I have room to pretend.

I knew one girl who didn't do this, who wore her loud, opinionated, smart self on her sleeve. She was perceived as obnoxious for it, but she worked with it, cultivated it and made it in your face enough to make it clear she wasn't ashamed of it. It definitely wasn't the easiest path she could have chosen, though. She always consistently got picked second for all the positions of power she'd run for.

With guys, it varies. Many seemed to have a kind of charisma, some are kinder with it than others. Arrogance is a pretty common trait that some learned could benefit them, while some seemed to realized it still made them a dick, no matter what the social benefits. Manipulation is another one such traits -- common, but less so with the more -- self aware? moral? -- ones.

One overwhelming impression I get across the board, even with the kindest and gentlest, is an annoyed "You're treating me like I'm stupid, and maybe everyone around you is about this level of intelligence, but I am not. You better recognize, and if you can't, you certainly don't have the right to be acting this superior." Which, you know, may reflect more on me than it does on them, come to think of it.

Not that I consider myself significantly intelligent -- intelligence is something I have complicated feelings on, and this post is already way way too long, yes?