JP’s Inner Greed here. Let Audible help you discover new ways to laugh, be inspired, or be entertained. New members can try it free for 30 days. Visit www.audible.com/terriblewritingadvice or text terriblewritingadvice to 500-500. Greed’s Audiobook Recommendations I still recommend World War Z since it has an all star cast. Seriously the guy who plays the original Tron does a voice-over as does Mark Hamill. I guess Max Brooks knows everyone in Hollywood. I also recommend Dresden Files. James Marsters gives an excellent performance that elevates the already good urban fantasy book series. As much as it pains me to admit, the General is right. The Ciaphas Cain audio books are quite good with multiple talented narrators. A strong recommendation for anyone who likes Warhammer 40000. For some non fiction, I recommend So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson and narrated by him as well. JP will need it in the future, I’m sure. I did also enjoy the Expanse Series even if it did kind of lurch over the finish line. Then again, I’ve seen far worse endings to be sure.
A lot of non-military people think that way. Soldiers should be roided-up, rock-stupid, thugs barely capable of forming a sentence, backed by extreme firepower. Strategy? Tactics? Knowing how stuff works? That's for nerds and wimps.
Don't forget to have them say sodium chloride when referring to table salt, even tho table salt isn't made of just those 2 chemicals because it'd be inedible then
If they are super into animals it works. I love knowing the scientific/botanical names of my favorite animals and plants. but then again liking animals counts as a reason...
I love it when one of the characters just assumes that the really smart scientist will surely have the answer to a question and the scientist response is something along the lines of "I'm an astrophysicist, why would I know about ancient alien death tongues?"
Thing that happens to me regularly. I am not a genius or super smart scientist, but have a good memory and am well read. In many cases I can offer something relevant if asked about a certain pool of topics..... But that leads to people mock me as all knowing and being scandalised when I do not know something about a topic I never claimed to have any level of knowlage of..... How leads me knowing about poisons or mental disorders to people assuming I am the one to ask questions about physics or promi travia?.... It astonishes myself what my brain can unearth at times but expecting someone with lots of knowlage in one topic to be all-knowing is stupid... Sometimes the clever one is not decided by virtue but by process of elimination.... And it is more often the case then I would like.... Being good at not falling for bs and predict how a story will go also does not mean one is a genius and master strategist. Way to many different skills and fields of knowlage get indiscriminately thrown togeather and theb"clever"one is supposed to excel in all of them without any rhyme or reason.....
I have a running joke with one of my characters where whenever she's in trouble she goes to her lawyer mother for legal advice, only for her mom to be like "For the last time, sweetie, I'm not a criminal justice lawyer, I'm a COPYRIGHT lawyer!"
Ironically, South Park did this really well in their parody of The Core. Cartman gets Randy on the team because he needs 'a scientist' and then he tells him to set up some sort of electrical system (I can't remember what it was). Randy: "What? I don't know how to do that." Cartman: "You're the scientist!" Randy: "I'm a geologist!"
I hate it when Smart Characters will be like “There’s only a 32% chance we survive this, I did the math!” instead of using their vast intellect to actually get them out of the situation.
@@carrot7868 The problem is not randomness. The problem is that the author tries to make a person appear smart by making him say smart sounding stuff. And if we take the smart guy serious then we end up with unrealistic situations.
One of my pet peeves is when the smart character, usually a scientist, babbles on about a theory, and another character will just blankly stare at them, and reply "Ugh, in English, please?" It was funny once upon a time, but now reads as clichéd.
Response I want: "...that was English. And also your station is one where you should know all of those terms and more. Will I have to file the paperwork for your immediate dismissal from service?"
It could be revived a bit if the techno-expositing character, without batting an eye, switches to explaining in Old or Middle English (or as close as possible where scientific words don't have translations). Complete with Beowulf-esque background music.
What I usually hate is techspeak that just throws in random scientific terms or misuses them to string them together as a justification. That annoys the hell out of me since I can actually understand what all that means and it comes off as really distracting. The one exception I really know of is Kill la Kill, where whenever Inumuta says something overly long and scientific whatever he's saying actually adds up, more or less
How to write a smart character: • Have them wear glasses • Have them always inventing machines • Make them the physically weakest of their team • Love triangle consisting of their smart crush and a hot guy/girl pretending to yearn for them
Its weird but every smart character love triangle I can think of has a smart girl pretending to like the guy, or only interested in him as friend, while the hot girl of average intellect genuinely likes him but is afraid to admit it. Either cause she's shallow and afraid of what others might think, or more commonly because she's afraid she's not smart enough to maintain his interest, (or that she thinks they won't have anything in common) and thinks the other girl is a better pick for him.
The glasses must be at least size too large so they have to constantly push them up, also physically weakest but have visually great physique, especially the females, and bonus points for lolies.
Fun fact : the very first actor who played the doctor , when shown the Tardis , he asked the crew to show him what each button would do , because kids would notice if he was inconsistent with them (Kids are actually pretty smart for things that have there attention than they are given credit for )
I feel like a way to show the character’s absent-mindedness would be for everything to just be labeled. Like, the scientist/engineer knows WHAT they need to do, but they just can’t keep straight WHICH button does it.
“In other words, the character doesn’t actually have to be smart, we just have to make them seem smart to the audience.” That’s . . . actually great advice? “Got all that? Good! Now throw it all away because we’re gonna cheat and use shortcuts” Ah, there it is.
That is every single one of his videos lol. Reels you in with useful information. minutes in you realize you've been had, but still stay because you realize it's a how NOT TO guide.
That is an accurate description of Chat GPT3, only the clueless believe it gives great answers and not just the equivalent of a compilation of 10 google searches. That AI is only an expert at gaslighting n00bs.
@@txorimorea3869 It's not even gaslighting, that would require intentionality. GPT is just putting words together based on statistics, it doesn't have the capacity to deceive anyone because it doesn't actually know what the words mean.
At very least explain it with Field Confoundment (I. E. "I'm an astrophysicist not a xenobiologist why would I know this‽") or have moments beforehand where lower stakes related issues come up and the character is shown to be on some shaky ground.
If your making a tactical genius, there’s only three options: A: Make every other officer incompetent B: Have them make guesses about the enemy (That are always right) C: Have them perform crazy, risky, and esoteric tactics (that of course, always work)
D: They somehow have some amazing understanding of how the enemy thinks which justifies why they do weird things that win even though it would be a bad move under most circumstances(see Empty Fort Strategy which works only if you're already a renown genius and people second guess their own actions).
@@scragar or E, steal enemy's rules (People;s Booke) but still have a wrench thown because of unconventional tactics used by enemy (see Artemis Fowl and troll by LEP)
If late Game of Thrones taught me anything, it’s that the key to creating a smart character is having all the other characters say over and over and over again how dangerous and intelligent the smart character is often, and especially, when all the evidence in the actual story contradicts this idea. You don’t have to worry about ACTUALLY crafting a strategic, cunning, meticulous planner when you can just have everyone else say that’s what they are. Much more straightforward!
@@jackmanleblanc2518 Given he eventually put on a body condom that also covered his eyes before essentially getting magical lasik surgery that changed them, this checks out.
Remember: if you want to write someone smart, you dont have to be smart. You have all the time you need to come up with a plan and then have the smart character do so in as little time as you need.
I find that a lot of writers are too lazy to even research though. Like if they're writing a story that takes place in space, they won't even bother to actually look up the actual scale of the universe. They'll portray the moon as being like a mile from the Earth, when in reality it's so much further, and they won't even bother to look up that distance to correct themselves.
You kinda still need to be smart, you just have an advantage of not having a time limit and having the ability to problem-solve backwards, by coming up with great ideas first and then making sure the plot provides your characters with opportunities to actually use these ideas.
@@ShadeSlayer1911 I come up with basic explanations like "Ships are fast, so going between planets is akin to a 20-hour plane trip, which is why the cast doesn't leave the main planet too often because it's really expensive to explore the universe"
Smart people can't always teach. Sometimes their intelligence is more talent than effort, and it's pretty hard to walk others through solving a problem when you can just look at it and jump to the answer.
Yeah I mean look at Snape in HP series. Is he a master in Potions and an inventor of spells? Yes. Does he teach efficiently usually to all? Not really. Unless you have the actual notes of his (6th book).
YESS! Try teaching someone your native language without saying "Idk, that's just how it is" Or generally try teaching someone with a different way of thinking, they will not understand why the solution is obvious and logical to you, and you will struggle to break it down because to you it's one of the baselines.
@@Eric6761 Yup, smart people can give you basic simplifications and summarization in a conversation, but they are just as regular as anyone else when it comes to teaching.
And it can come down to lots of other things, too. People skills. Confidence. Hard to teach when you're shy and everyone is staring at you. Or just presentation skills! I once had a horrible teacher who was a brilliant mathematician. He mumbled in a monotone and stood in front of everything he wrote on the board at all times.
I once heard of two pretty neat way to make to make a character seem smart: 1. Have then solve a complex problem with a simple solution (or simplifying something very complex things to the point even the dumbest of doors could understand it in some way.) Or 2: have them bring up the many problems a very simple idea could lead to by analyzing it,like yeah blowing up the castle's door might be a easy way to get in but what about the price of all the gunpowder they'll gonna need? The structural damage that might lead the whole thing falling down on them or the fact they can just enter trough open sewer system that is two steps around that corner,which then leads back to point 1.
When I write (I'm just a hobbyist) I have the character go through multiple solutions in their head and explain why he chose one over the others. This also helps address plotholes, for example, "why doesn't the character just assassinate the bad guy in his sleep?" "Because he has the nobles on his payroll and if he tried and failed, he'd get the death penalty."
I saw the tip of, do your rsearch how you could do that plan reasonable , and then have it a character say lik its easy. But seeing through complex nonsense pointing out a simple solution works too i guess.
@@G102Y5568 There's also charaterization to factor in. "Why Does he not realize this woman is obviously manipulating him?" Because he's actually as dumb as a rock. "Why does this lord not make an alliance with the commander of the gate, and just engage in costly assault?" Because his pride refuses him to ally with a man who rose up from the common folk. Even smart characters can have well characterized blind spots.
To be fair, once you study quantum physics, chemistry, and/or cellular biology/biochemistry, common sense becomes more of a hindrance. Quantum physics doesn't work in a way our brains evolved to understand, cell biology is a system engineered by RNJesus, and chemistry is just weird. Also you don't start studying this really hard stuff when you have the intelligence to make more money in an easier field unless there's already something wrong with you. (Speaking as someone studying biochemistry and planning to get a PhD in it) That said your point is completely valid.
One of the most grating way (and obviously Mary Sue-ish) to write a smart character is having an actual career scientist/teacher/researcher/wtv try to deny said character's idea, only to have the character simply go "you're wrong, I'm smarter than you and therefore automatically right. I don't need to explain myself how, I just know better by being the protagonist". AKA the "Batman can outsmart everyone including literal omniscient characters just by the fact that he's Batman, but also let's ignore how he's not smart enough to solve Gotham's corruption".
hell yeah, i hate this so much about the Justice League as a whole. They have to purposefully nerf everyone to suck up Batman. Superman in his own series is extremely smart, can create freaking robots, machines and gear that help him combat outer world threats. Flash can think, process and learn things super fast in his own story,... But when Batman appear, Superman is nothing more than a potentially emotionally unstable brute of the team, and the flash is nothing more than the punch line/clown of the Justice League. This is why ill never take DC, JL and batman as a whole seriously, because they need to nerf everyone else in order to make Batman look badass The dude who can put a collar on the entire JL, stand face to face with DarkSeid and solve some 5th dimensional murder case or something cant even think of a solution to lock up the villains in Gotham for good
The usual copout to that is that Batman is brilliant but also very damaged and uses his "crusade" to justify his hobbies rather than truly devoting himself to his stated goals. He won't solve systemic corruption because he wants to solve metahuman mysteries and beat people up, not sit at a desk compiling airtight cases to get corrupt judges off the bench or extensively trace organized crime money laundering. He doesn't solve Gotham because he either deep down doesn't think he can, or doesn't want to. Or the moral thing where he doesn't trust himself not to turn gotham into a totalitarian fiefdom if he took it upon himself to fix all its problems and impose final justice personally. He's too devoted American neoliberal philosophy to wholeheartedly take those steps. And when he toes that line it tends to backfire spectacularly!
Got to love how the most overpowered superhero is the one who is just a normal guy with a infinite bank account (when he's not broke for a story that will be undone anyways)
Don't forget the "mastermind" archetype, who can be written as smart by simply handing them a copy of the script so they know everything ahead of time! It doesn't matter if there's no way they could have learned about some of those things with the instruments at their disposal, and you certainly don't have to show them gathering evidence or thinking anything through. Just let them be mysteriously vague about how they've solved everything and handwave away that audience skepticism by insulting their intelligence.
@@Eric6761 really? Nothing against this assertion, but my immediate guess was kira from death note. He feels way more like a sentient script, than a character, the longer this goes on
@@dimitriosdrossidis9633 i just talked about L because he would be the most recognizable as a detective but yeah Kira is waaaayy too conscious about script the longer it goes on
And then you have Artemis Fowl which actually does steal rules of the enemy ( the Peoples' Booke) but still has troll and Holly having still an acorn is possesion (1st something against the LEP rule and 2nd as something he did personally interfere and put a precaution in form of of freshly made concrete in cell, which proved not enough) thrown a wrench in his plans but still succeed due to badass subordinates xD
And they must be both scientists AND engineers, despite the fact that scientists and engineers have almost no overlap in skill sets because science and engineering are completely different fields. (Broadly speaking, scientists do the discovering and theorizing while engineers take what scientists found and scale it up/make it actually useful. This is a broad generalization though so take it with several grains of salt)
@@sophiedowney1077hard disagree. As someone who will soon have a masters in chemical engineering, they’ve pretty much tracked us into both. It’s not that you’re wrong as much as it is somewhat overlapping it’s just hard to tell because despite wanting to be a process engineer they’ve forced me into research so we are all more or less a mix of each.
Also be aware of "Sherlock Syndrome" where the smart character knows everything in every field and is a walking encyclopedia of omnipotence. He speaks 7 languages, understands the history of typewriters, can identify references in classical music, can spot flaws in a car engine, is an expert in multiple martial art fighting styles and hundreds more unrelated fields of study. Despite the fact that smart people tend to be smart only in a select field.
To be fair, there was a brief time in the 19th Century when a sufficiently disciplined and intelligent person could be familiar with nearly the entire corpus of knowledge. Doyle also had Holmes consult encyclopedias and collect information. (He was also helping invent the detective genre, and it shows.) Then the world really got cranking and technical and scientific knowledge increased to the point that nobody could keep up.
Can't say I disagree exactly, even though "Study in Scarlet" basically starts with Watson noting down with how much commonplace stuff Holmes doesn't know (eg. that the earth rotates around the sun) Anything that cannot possibly be of interest to his crime solving is not worth remembering to him, he specializes, though in a large field. I'm not definitely sure what I think, I'm going to be careful and say, well, maybe it's possible for Sherlock. It probably sounds more than it is, for his way of thinking, this might be easy to keep in mind simultaneously, just thinking a bit I could name numerous things that aren't my designated field but that I know a lot about. Not saying I'm like Sherlock, lol, I'm just a nerd. Just meaning, I didn't have that problem when looking at Sherlock bc it just felt like he spend his whole life expanding and learning more knowledge which was immediately boosted by the skill of deduction. Still something to be wary of though, for sure. The more you specialize, the less time for different fields.
Not exactly. People who ONLY have "book smarts" tend to hyper specialize in one field. However, there are different kinds of intelligence. The smartest people I've ever known weren't scientists or professors (in fact, those people in my experience were really thick in the head over most things, even basic things. Also they tended to be extremely arrogant, though not always). Rather, they were pretty "normal" people. Blue collar workers, factory workers, etc. They knew so many things and were able to think incredibly deeply, and would say genuinely profound things, yet they were able to explain their thoughts and knowledge to anyone, even children, in ways anybody could understand. They also, most of the time, didn't really think they were that smart and would be genuinely confused that everybody else didn't know the things they knew, or considered the more deep and complex ideas and ideologies they had, in a humble way of course.
Honestly "sell the illusion" tip encapsulates the entire storywriting trade You are supposed to make your story so awesome it generates margin of willing suspension of disbelief in the viewers, and then make it even more awesome WITHOUT crossing it. Internal consistency above external, but being externally "muh sci fi realism" accurate is a nice bonus too as long as it won't tread on quality of rest of the components
My favorite smart character I ever used had a tendency to do rather than explain and I liked to use it for comedy. "I'd _love_ to spend the next nine hours condensing my entire college education down so that I could explain how this works to you, but it'll be easier if I just tell you that it's magic so that you'll shut up and I can get some goddamn work done."
You've just reminded me of Tech from Star Wars: The Bad Batch. It was practically a running gag for a while that he kept not telling the others crucial plot info because he "thought it was obvious."
There’s a term for a writing trope called “Loves The Science” It’s where the writer wants to write a character who’s passionate about some field of STEM (Science Technology Engineering & Mathematics) but the writer doesn’t actually KNOW anything about those subjects, so their character never goes into detail about what they love about science or why.
This is really bad in Marvels Iron Heart comic. The main character is told that she is too smart and genius to be around normal teenagers and that she loves the science and engineering, but it never shows us these things besides her vaguely putting a wrench in some "complex device". Extra points when there are useless holograms everywhere displaying "data".
@@spacejunk2186 it’s kinda ironic how writers will show characters looking at holographic data displays to show how smart they are, when it’s honestly more impressive to see a character derive meaning from a giant block of computer code. Like, what’s more impressive? Cutting down a tree with an Axe, a Chainsaw, or your Bare Hands?
And the writer is too lazy to find a top university group on that exact subject and ask them a question online. Like "what you like and hate on your research field".
You forgot a vital method of writing smart characters: Making everyone else dumb to make them seem smart. See: Any story where only Batman can figure out the Riddler's riddles. Also having them anticipate things and having them fall exactly how they anticipated even when many other outcomes are just as probable.
@@panlis6243 You just pinned down what I dislike about sherlock. It was such a vague feeling but that totally explains it Come to think of it a lot of detective stories could spice things up by having the police be occasionally useful, sometimes even revealing unexpected things the detective must accept / reinvent
@@tsm688 That's a pretty common critisism of Sherlock. I've heard it even before I started reading books and that definitely checks out. I found that the story is much better enjoyed if you just pretend that Sherlock's "deduction" is just some magical ability that doesn't involve actual logic. Still I wish the author wouldn't be so focused on constantly showing off how smart Sherlock is
@@panlis6243 especially funny when you think about the author's delusions of grandeur later. He took Sherlock's method of logic and used it to "prove" the existence of pixies ...
Or make the smart character seem smart by making the answer completely unsolvable but having the character figure it out anyways based on a series of logical fallacies and made up observations not available to the reader
@@almondjoy4938 Well, you do tend to expand your vocabulary greatly if you learn to obtain CAE or especially CPE. In opposite to many of the native English speakers (CPE owner with hobby in translations from, and to, native language (Polish) to English here). However, part of being proficient in communication is beign able to properly adjust the level of conversation to person you are trying to speak to. You can use higher level vocabulary to someone who you know is intelligent or when you need to use technical/nuanced language, but when you speak with layperson/ person who has lower level of knowledge or lower proficiency of language you are speaking in, you would use simpler language to convey your ideas efficiently. Tip: oftentimes those fancier words would have more specific and detailes meaning that would suit exactly the idea you try to sell, but you run the risk of other not knowing them and going nowhere with it as the result).
I think th most important skill ther is to ignore bs and try getting what has substance. Makes any word salad less bad. And he is actually having a point, if unnessesary long, unlike most word salads.
“I never met a smart person who bragged about their intelligence” That’s because every smart person in existence thinks they are of average skills and that plenty of people can do what they do.
@@icecreamhero2375 difference is, he suffers a big old problem of having a good pr team, thinking he’s smarter than he actually is, and some good old Hubris
Writing smart characters is easy, or at least it comes naturally with the process. The plan or witty comeback that took you months to craft took your character seconds. You can manipulate time in your screenplay. That's really all it takes.
I'd like to add one thing. I agree that smart people are quicker at thinking of something. But that also changes their way of thinking. Smart people are less repetitive and are less patient when people are repetitive. If a smart person explains something then he gives the most crucial concepts of it once and thinks you understand it. Also he might draw comparisons to other things which have the same underlying concepts but seem quite different on the surface. If a dumb person explains something then they focus on the symptoms and the superficial aspects. And they combine that with repeating it a bunch of time to memorize it. They might also draw connections to other things, but the connections are more related to the symptoms and how it appears on the surface.
@@benrex7775 Smart people may bungle their explanations by drawing too many comparisons, because the comparisons make the subject matter clearer for them but confuse their audience. They may also give their explanations too quickly, failing to insert the proper amount and/or length of pauses to give their audience time to digest the information. In addition, they may start their explanations in the wrong place. They may explain the underlying principle before discussing the different ways said principle can manifest, or vice versa, thus leading the audience to tune out the first half of their explanation because they have no frame of reference for it yet and be completely underwhelmed by the second half.
@@benrex7775What you say is completely wrong. It's simply based on your narrow definition of what intelligence means. There are many ways that peoples brains and thinking works. Some work much slower, and may still be far more intelligent and think deeper than a person with really quick wit. Also something that someone understands as superficial or repetitive can be way different in meaning, context or depht than someone else understands it to be. It only relates to others intelligence based on how well they can understand what is being said. But it's up to them to actually try. Which relates your point of getting annoyed by repetition: Was it repetitive, or did you discard it before you could figure out what was the point? Was other person being thick and talking beside the point, or were you actually talking different things from to the get go. Or did you just miss the difference in point of view. Debating things is fun and interesting, because people can have so vastly different ways of seeing things.
@@jhutt8002 I agree that being smart can have various aspects to it. I usually use intelligent as a loose synonym to IQ. Being smart also includes being knowledgeable, being educated, being wise, being curious, being creative, understanding humans, understanding world views and so on. Also what a person is interested in hugely influences of how smart someone appears to be. Based on what you say you sound like a person who has always spent time in the presence of people with a similar standard deviation of IQ. Have you ever talked to someone with an IQ of at least 2 standard deviations higher than you. And have you ever talked to someone with an IQ of at least 2 standard deviations lower than you? _(2 Standard deviation = 30 IQ points)._ I know people like this in both directions and I interact with them on regular basis. The difference is large enough that this type of generalization starts to make sense. Of course there is always some variance in everything. There can be highly intelligent people with world views so dumb that they believe in the most stupid ideas without seeing the obvious. Or a person who is curious and hard working can compensate a lot when it comes to IQ. PS. I don't intend to say that people with little intelligence are less valuable or less interesting to be around. It is just that this specific aspect is the way I described it according to my experience. It's not just about not getting their point when they say it. It's about hearing the same point or same question for months at a time.
I like how there are actual bits of good writing advice that you give, both in JP's sarcastic dismissal of good ideas, or with the metaphor about the magician to talk about how you can write a smart character without needing to be so yourself
Also remember that the smart character must be smart in everything, regardless of their actual occupation or field of study. It’s not like you can have a bunch of different smart people such as chemists, mathematicians, and historians who defer to each other when outside their own area of expertise.
And if they actually are polymaths versed in many fields, never show them thinking and making sense of the information or crossreferencing from different sources in any way shape or form, just have them be gods that can piece together vastly different pieces of information in a whim with no struggle!
This makes me think of scientist characters that can just do anything. They are all the best at Robotics, physics, biological engineering. I’d like to see a story where a scientist is force to engineer something out of their field like someone who makes robots try to apply their knowledge to Bio Engineering
One way to depict a smart character is to have them come up with a plan that requires a lot of variables (that he/she can't predict or control) all go in the protagonists' favor, then when they try it, it succeeds, and everyone calls it "genius". In fact, make sure all the smart character's plans always succeed.
You don't want the audience to assume this is due to chance, though--first make sure the smartypants says "We have to account for every possible variable" so that the audience understands how much brain energy they used for this flawless plan
any good plan crafting implies taking as many possibilities of failure into account and prepare corrections. Having a character devise a plan, then progressively showing along it happening how they imagined outcomes (even unexpected ones) and found solutions or alterations for it can do wonders. Readers will try that game too, so impressing them is really effective.
@@benjaminthibieroz4155 True, but there's a difference between having a character say "We need to account for ever possiblity" and showing him/her accounting for every possiblity. If after saying that we only show them accounting for 3-4 of say 12-15 possibilities, then pretend that's all of them, and have the plot validate them, then that would be bad writing. So yes, it can be done right, but it can also be done wrong.
There are 2 problems with this approach. The first is that the character always gets lucky, and the other is that every character pretends that the result was predetermined. One way to fix it is to have them admit that their plan is risky and have them suffer failures a few times. That one guy in the group who everyone only turns to when they are desperate because of the riskiness of his plans would actually be pretty read or watch.
In a manhwa I'd read, "Beware of the Villainess", there was a fun take on this. There was a character described as a genius in the original story, but the main character notes that he's actually not that smart in reality, because the author wasn't smart enough to actually write him as smart. Fun stuff!
11:51 Mispronouncing big words isn't bad; it can just mean they only learnt it from books and not from speech, which might mean they know more about it than any of their peers.
As a person who has a much bigger book count than person-I've-spoken-to-in-real-life count, I have a few embarrassing moments related to this. I was so disappointed when I found out the c in scintillating wasn't pronounced. Also, yeah, I'm sure I sounded like an idiot.
yeah was expecting more of a coup (like seriously what corrupt government fires its whole military in one go and expect to stay in power more than a few days) but nice subversion
Has anyone else seen a smart character who questions if they’re smart because they don’t also have the kind of intelligence everyone else seems to have (mainly social intelligence/practical knowledge)? Maybe I’ve just been looking in the wrong places, but I’ve had trouble finding them (Edit: Recommendations would be appreciated if you happen to have any :) )
I believe Artemis Fowl did curse his puberty to hell and asked Butler repeatedly if it is normal to have lapses of judgement during it and the adrenaline rushes. Also asked Butler how to deal with apology to Holly for the end of the second novel, and still was being awkward as hell.
Fairly obscure, but there's an "idiot" side character in Star Trek called Rom, and he gradually becomes essential to the plot. Also, I've heard secondhand that one of the people involved with inventing the limpet mine was usually dismissed as unintelligent by those who didn't know him well, and didn't seem to disagree with that assessment despite his own brilliant ideas, but I'm afraid I don't have a name or any sources to give for that.
Hanekawa Tsubasa from the Monogatari series comes to mind. Although she's impossibly, supernaturally intelligent because of... reasons, she's convinced she's nothing special. Great example of a truly smart character written by a truly smart author.
One thing I'm surprised you didn't mention - the idea of being 'smart' can be split into two parts: wit and knowledge. Wit refers here to the ability to rapidly make useful conclusions out of the data points they have. Knowledge is just how many of those data points you have. One can emulate wit in their writing by thinking for a long time and considering a problem the characters are facing from many different angles, maybe even asking others how they'd solve it given the information they have access to, and then having the smart character come up with your final, refined plan to solve that problem really quickly.
I've seen you below a few comments here and appreciate your insight. Since you are here I assume you like reading. I can recommend a book to you. It's called "Forty Millenniums Of Cultivation". I recommend that book because the author is quite a smart guy and it is apparent in the plots which his characters have. Also it has a well thought out world building. You can read it online for free but it might take a while. According to my reading speed its a bit less than 600h. I've read about a third of it so far. The genre is a mix between sci-fi and a cultivation novel.
About Exposition Puppets, I sort of ran into this issue with my own fanfiction. Since it was from the protagonist perspective expounding the story's events to an anonymous party, I had difficulty in trying to have him recount the events succinctly and within character, which ultimately led to the guy just rambling and bloating chapter to unimaginable degrees. My solution was to just have the second person become impatient and interrupt whenever the rambling started.
@@valhatan3907 Based has gained a second meaning recently. It's mainly used by Authoritarian Rightists (which can range from simple Paleoliberals all the way to Totalitarians, and everything in between). By saying that something is based, without saing that it is based on something else, you agree with it. However, this new meaning has not erased the old meaning of the word. Both are being used across the internet.
One thing about writing academics: A really good shortcut to making them dump exposition without iut feeling boring is to give them a niche subject that they are really, REALLY passionate about. Don't let your resident nuclear engineer rattle down how your own ship's reactor works, let them have an angry rant about what idiot configured the reactor of the ship next to it in the fleet formation that it produces those kinds of readings on its signature when increasing the output
Another way to write a smart character is to nerf the intelligence of everyone else in the cast: make sure no one else ever proposes the most obvious solution to the problems they face, and have their minds blown when the smart character finally comes up with it at the last second.
Dont forget, being smart means your character can calculate ANYTING with his mind, even the movement of the air molecules in air... Without any needed tool
Edelgard from Fire Emblem Three Houses is my go-to example of a well-written intelligent character. She isn't intelligent because she can prattle off technobabble or engineer a gigantic contrived conspiracy that only works perfectly because random plot elements all align perfectly, she is intelligent because she repeatedly shows she can string together simple plans and change them on the fly based on new information and unseen setbacks. She is often played a bad hand and sometimes her plans are upended because of something she never expected, but she remains calm and her moves always make sense given what she would know in the moment.
Nothing irks me like a smart character that seems invulnerable to outside factors. Like Batman when he's with the Justice League or the Cumberbatch Sherlock
I agree, and add that we get that even more in 3 Hopes. Since you get to see more of the actual war there than you do in 3 Houses, there's a lot more opportunity to show her character, and Edelgard especially shines for it. I love both of the Fodlan games so much, and I hope that the upcoming release of Engage doesn't stop them from making DLC for 3 Hopes, it deserves more and I'm not ready for the Fodlan era to be over yet
Or even Claude, where like edelgard he can set up alliances and persuade people. He also will research things and get to know the area and people . Claude(and Yuri to extend) is more emotional intelligent.
One advantage writers have in writing intelligent characters - even ones the writer considers smarter than themselves - is that the writer can spend hours, days or even weeks coming up with ideas or plans. The character within the story can then have those ideas or plans in a fraction of the time.
They can also search topics or literally just ask a bunch of other people how to solve a particular problem. A fictional character can literally have the output of a hundred people brainstorming for a few minutes.
If one's prerogative is to inculcate the illusion of sagacity, the foremost method is to intersperse one's parlance with supererogatory sesquipedalian circumlocution. Because that's how smart people talk.
8:26 that being said, the very similar torturous experiments of Japan's "mad science" division, Unit 731, were considered valuable enough by the United States that they let a lot of their members of the hook in exchange for the data they collected.
In that case... scientists in the labs of superpowers doing morally vague science aren't mad psychiatrically, nor chaotic like the movie clishe. Both superpowers and science like discipline, so an LE personality is more suitable. Maximum - a bit weird around socially. Working on biological weapons or a nuke actually requires a lot of extra discipline. Look up the rules of biohazard lvl 5 lab.
As one thing I personally like to say: A smart character should be used as a wink and a nod for the audience/reader/etc who have pieced enough together on their own, while bringing anyone else not quite in the know up to speed, without completely ruining any plot twists. To see examples of this, watch/read any really good whodunit/murder mysteries.
I tend to outright avoid writing notably 'smart' characters - mostly just focusing on people of average intelligence - because I am, by all conceivable metrics, kind of an idiot.
I feel the same way. Except I like to write dumb characters, not even average intelligence. It's sort of fun that way, because it's easy to give those characters a moment to shine, when everyone around them has gotten used to assuming that they're too stupid to understand anything.
The only bit of advice this video seems to be missing is that your characters should have one or more non-specified PHDs and have earned them all at a well known prestigious college, like Harvard. Or Yale if you're feeling spicy. Also they should have earned all that before 25, ideally no later than 20. Unless you have a young target audience in which case then you should scale the age back even more.
I think that is a good thing. It is difficult to write characters which think different than you do. This makes it that your characters are more realistic. If you were to write people with a different intelligence level you are bound to make it wrong and make it feel unnatural. But if you try to bring in some variety to the intelligence then I can give you a few tips. I have thought of that topic every now and then and I might have certain insights which are new to you. I hope I didn't write too much. I had to split the comment due to the character limit of the RUclips comments. :-P By the way I'm in very male dominate environments so that might have a bit of an influence on what I write here. Also even though I would love to write stuff, I rarely do it so my comments are just from an observer point of view and I don't know how to use it as a writer. Smart people are way quicker at understanding something. Dumb people need to hear it several times to understand it. A really smart person takes a look at it, compares it to a seemingly unrelated thing and notices that they have the same underlying reason for why they work. After that one look he has understood it. If he tries to explain it to someone he just explains the underlying reason and skips everything else. Since that was enough for him to understand it he assumes the same applies to the other people. A really dumb person doesn't grasp most difficult concepts. They understand enough to go through daily life. Whatever they need to understand they look for how the effects are and repeat them long enough to memorize it. And that memorizing process can take months. As you see intelligence is not just about how quick you notice it but it also influences other aspects of life. For example a smart person hears it once and from then on looks at it as a given and finds it annoying if it is repeated again. The thinking of a dumb person is mostly about repeating stuff so that they can understand it. So far I've only focused on intelligence. With intelligence I mean IQ or pattern recognition. If you want to get a better grasp of it try to make a friend who is 40 IQ points smarter than you and one who is 40 IQ points dumber than you. Then it starts to get quite obvious. The problem with smart people is that their behavior is probably adjusted to interacting with people of normal intelligence since they are around them all the time since young. Because of that their natural way of thinking is covered up with an act which is more approachable by a person of normal intelligence. It is not a perfect act but enough to work in most situations. So perhaps you should find two friends who are both 40 IQ points smarter than you and look how they interact with each other. But smart is not just about having a high or low IQ. - I've seen scientists and engineers who are very successful, but according to my judgement they have only a slightly above average intelligence. They compensate a lack of IQ with curiosity, persistence and experience. With those traits you can get quite far. Never underestimate them. - Then there is the world view. Let's take a simple example. Peter intentionally hurts a person just for the joy of it. Paul sees that. His world view assumes that all humans are good. Since Paul is a smart guy who likes to have a consistent world view he finds a solution: The environment causes Peter to do such a horrendous action. And now Paul is trying to find an reason how the environment caused Peter to do this atrocity. As Paul is a smart guy he finds a lot of things which might cause Peter to do it. But all of them are wrong and those wrong conclusions cause Paul to fail to predict the next action of Peter. By the way this can be a problem in foreign policy. For example China might have different global warming goals than Germany. This is just one specific example of how the world view can influence our reasoning. Another example would be about the left/right divide. Left leaning people think that we should help the poor by giving them money. After all if you are in debt you can't get your life back on track. But they miss that just handing out money does not motivate people to start being self dependent. Right leaning people on the other hand notice that just throwing money at the poor does not motivate them to get the life in order. Their approach is to give them a job. And they miss that some people are in such a bad mental state that they are not capable of working at a job. Both see the same problem and want to help but fail to do so for different reasons. - EQ. Although EQ is a dubious concept psychologically speaking, Emotional intelligence is a thing which exists. If you don't pay attention to your emotions at all you can either bury them deep until you break down or you can be a volatile bomb ready to explode in them most inconvenient situations. People who have their emotions under control are capable of listening and reacting to their emotions when they are helpful and putting them on pause when they get in the way. - Knowledge of human nature. Humans are not machines or mathematical functions. Some people are good at prediction how humans react and some are bad with it. Some use that to manipulate humans and rise in society while others use that to help other humans or understand themselves better. _(I don't want to imply that rise in society due to knowledge of human nature is always a manipulative thing. It can be but does not have to be)_ By the way if you want to have a bit of inspiration of human nature then I can recommend things like 16personalities for general personality traits or the socio-sexual hierarchy for how men behave in a group. - Rhetoric. Some people are very good at giving speeches and convincing people of what they want. They don't try to make a logical case for why things are in a step by step manner. They are masters in inducing emotions in the listener, often through the use of telling stories. This can be used for good (most likely your favorite teacher) or for bad (most dictators). - Topic of interest. Let's say I have a highly intelligent farmer who is creative, innovative, well read, persistent and so on. He puts 110% into his work and is successful in what he does. But he doesn't have the aspiration of making a nationwide farming chain. After all his job can feed the family and if he were to expand he would have to start making more management related work. Now we have a nuclear physicist who knows the theories which the teachers taught him but he does not do any research on his own and he is not really that good at coming up with new ideas. Who appears smarter? Most people would say the nuclear physicist just because of his choice of interest. - Wisdom. Actually I don't yet know what wisdom is. My current definition is something like this: _"A respected person who agrees with you and is capable of explaining things in a simple manner."_ I think wisdom is often related to a person who is high in a social hierarchy. And it doesn't matter how wise someone is, if they have a different enough world view compared to the listener then people just think of him as a cult leader. And in the end what makes us think a person is wise is his speaking skills. I deliberately didn't write _"[...] is capable of explaining _*_complex_*_ things in a simple manner."_ Wise words don't have to be complex. They don't even have to make sense. They just have to agree with what you wanted to say but couldn't.
To end my comment of I want to write about writing characters of different smartness. I don't know how you write your characters, but if you want to make them a bit more different from each other you could for example say that one character is very good at noticing how people feel (knowledge of human nature + EQ) while another one is good at explaining things (rhetoric + wisdom). But the person good at explaining things first has to go to the person with a high intelligence (intelligence + generally social) as this is the one who is the one who actually understands the situation. Or you could make a very smart person (intelligence + persistence + introvert) who is just interested in some weird side topic which has no relevance to the story. And everyone keeps distance from him because they don't really know how to communicate with him and he has no patience to explain everything three times. Perhaps one arc requires them to interact with him. Please just don't change his character afterwards in a way where they force him to participate in their activities or he does so of his free will. I always dislike it if authors do so. I don't change from introvert to extrovert because of some group project. And if people force me to spend more time with them I'm not happy that I don't have my me time anymore. Such a character prioritizes working alone on his topic of interest with no disturbance over almost anything. More plausible reactions could be for example, that an extroverted person wants to include this person in all activities and he runs away. A more socially adapt person reminds the extrovert that his behavior is not helpful. But since they now know each other better they now greet each other in the hallway and if they have a problem which they can help they ask each other. The introvert first tries to do everything he can until he asks them while the extrovert might run to the introvert every time when it is moderately related. And then there is a person who is dumb. If it is in a school setting then the dumb person has to compensate by being extremely hard working. If it is some non-school setting no such compensation is needed. This person can go perfectly through life and understands the necessary thing and has even a good world view which makes him make surprisingly accurate predictions. But whenever this person talks it is on similar and very repetitive topics. He always asks the same questions and the life stories he tells are mostly known by the second chapter. The only reason to increase the number of stories is due to him trusting the group more. You could use that person to introduce new plots. For example this person suddenly comes and asks about a word he picked up. Everybody else heard it before and went on. But due to this person asking about it all the time they notice that it is actually quite relevant. Here the motive of the dumb person was just to figure out that new word he heard means and it takes him an entire chapter. But the rest of the group notice thanks to him that there is more to it than they first thought. And the reason why the others including the intelligent guy didn't notice is because they had a different world view which didn't allow for that anomaly to happen. Thanks to the dumb guy they noticed that anomaly and expand their world view a little. I gave you a bit of an overview on the topic of smart. But this does not come as a replacement of knowing such people personally. Especially in the case of dumb people. If you get a dumb person wrong it has a high risk of feeling that you are looking down on him. Give that person very positive character traits. And don't make this person vary in intelligence. Keep the being dumb at a constant rate. Perhaps make him more of an observer so that he doesn't start to annoy the readers.
this isn't actually 100% accurate, as a person who's not super smart can still use their experiences esp with smarter/cleverer people (or just straight up anomalous occurrences) to write a smart or at least clever character, while being unable to come up with those solutions on their own. To frame it more rigorously, the character can only be as intelligent as the source from which it was based upon. in the cases where a writer has little life experience to use, that means the writer's intelligence is taken to task. in the case where the writer can burn other stories as fuel, then the most intelligent characters in those stories are the upper limit. worth noting, this is an upper bound, and not always tight; the end result may be much lower or it may approach the bound, depending on writing skill, and this upper bound does not account for variance that naturally applies when people do things. One more case worth noting is that, thanks to aforementioned variance, just by editing a work enough (given the editing itself is reliable), a person may be able to reach a good ways above the theoretical bound as well, to a point.
THANK YOU! This is what I already wrote to Hello Future Me to talk about. How both smarter and limited characters are a fascinating challenge for any writer given that he is (probably) not them, so everything can go wrong (or lame) really fast. What clever tricks he/she/they will employ, given that someone smarter would presumably come up with a better solution to their problem.
Real talk, one of my favorite character archetypes is the accurate smart character. They are extremely intelligent in a specific field, but otherwise are just average, or even below average, compared to "normal" people. This extremely limited competence can lead to massive blindspots, which can create really neat character interaction. For example, someone who is extremely competent at all things warfare and military might collapse in despair or react irrationally when confronted with a nation that is overwhelmingly powerful, even though that nation is largely peaceful and friendly.
"WE NEED TO LAUNCH THE NUKES!!!" "...they are literally asking us to run their nation for them because their king was murdered." "WHERE'S THE LAUNCH CODES‽"
Or they might field options for unconventional warfare of the type less powerful nations use to fend off more powerful nations with a surprisinglt high rate of success. They might also have gone over something like rhe official plans for fending off alien invasions with the assumption that they want the planet and population intact which isn't unlikely given that humans and life is the only thing earth has that you couldn't get anywhere else in much greater quantities and quality (if they don't want the planet alive you are already dead).
"Even if you get rejected [when you ask for information from experts], don't worry, you'll find one who won't shut up about it eventually" This is so incredibly true! A huge number of experts are experts because they're obsessed with a topic and it's the only thing they want to talk about.
Before I even watch this: One of the worst things about smart characters is that the writer has to be kind of smart, too. Nothing is sillier and less believable than a moron's idea of a smart character. This goes for supposedly tricky or clever puzzles created by morons, too.
Either the smart thing that the smart character does really isn't that smart and can even actually be stupid, or the intelligence is written more like it's magic. For the latter, I point to Batman as an example. His intelligence is written like it's magic more than anything.
Ahhh, yes. Every (vaguely) science fiction series or story needs the omni-diciplinary scientist, who's also an engineer, technician, physician and historian!
I like the “big words” example at 3:10 for a variety of reasons. For one, you mispronounced a lot of the words, which serves as an illustrative example of why one shouldn’t use big words as an author if they can use simpler, more direct phrasing. Also, leaving in the pronunciations as you did really humanizes you as a creator and tells viewers that it’s okay to make mistakes
Nah, using bigger words is a good thing in most cases... ever heard of subtext and lexical variety? Like, sure, the word "Slavegirl" is straight and to the point, but it carries an icky connotation that its synonyms like "Servitrix", "Handmaiden," "Maid," "Domestic," Etc., just don't carry. Same thing with words like "Vestibule", like I can write in my novel a "Vestibule Pillar" and it will make sense, but if I write something about a "Foyer Pillar" or "Threshold Pillar," it just ends up sounding unintuitive and brings the wrong imagery to mind..
I remember in highschool writing a story about a group of outcasts with vastly different personalities that somehow manage to become very good friends and the story focused on how they meet and grow closer. Looking back it wasn't my most exciting work but I was very proud of my main character Lucas and his father George. George was a biochemist and medical engineer and seen by many of his colleagues as brilliant. His wife died of a rare terminal illness (one that I completely made up and can't remember the name of). This caused George to fall into a deep depression and develop an obsession with finding a cure. He spent countless days without sleep spending hours upon hours working at his company's lab rarely ever coming home. And when he was home, he was often delving through numerous medical journals for anything that might help him. He was a flawed man who was torn between his work and raising his family. He felt immense guilt over not being there for so many important moments in his son's life. One of the best lines I've ever written was from Lucas. He said "I know what loss is, Dad. You aren't the only one who misses Mom. The only difference is, when she died, I lost *both* my parents." The climax of the story is when the group of friends graduates and Lucas looks out and sees his father in the crowd smiling back at him with a tear in his eye. After the ceremony, the two embrace and share a tender moment where George tells Lucas that from now on his family will always come first. I don't know why I felt the need to write all this. Maybe it was all the talk about scientists.
5:56 That's EXACTLY what Tony Stark does in Marvel's Midnight Suns, use big words and snark to cover for a lot of his insecurities. And nearly all his big plans to resolve the plot DON'T WORK, which aggravates a lot of the preexisting conditions he came into this story with.
My biggest pet peeve with most smart characters is that they're scientists most of the time. Of course, there are exceptions (Dr. Stone actually pulls this off really well by having characters be experts each in their own field, with Senku just being an expert in a specific section of them)
I actually like that in stargate atlantis, like mckay is one smart character, and brags, but then john is also very smart, and that is shown by how he like hows he is petty smart actually and just playing it down, but like that make them hhaving that fun dynamic that they get really close too and even have rivalries. I jut like that the are characters good at different things. like in the original oneil is far more smarter than letting on,or just wiser. I mean yeah , why cant you have a smart like whatever. or artist, or athleth, or, hat else.
This is why I like Miles O'Brien on Star Trek, he's just this relatable down to earth guy that is also a brilliant engineer. But in general Star Trek has a wide range of characters who are smart in their own ways and expertise. Which I appreciate about it most of the time.
FYI, the words mentioned in 11:07 come from Gardner's 7 intelligences. It is actually proven to be wrong and is inauthentic, but the hypothesis was scientific enough given the tools he had to work with. Do not let that stop you from using it in your stories though, because some people may find it easier to use non-scientific things like MBTI to plan out the personalities of their characters and that's completely fine.
There's a fine art in using Technobabble that is still mostly nonsense (since it usually refers to technology that does not exist yet) but that is close enough to real tech to be relatable. "We need to reverse the polarity of the flux capacitor" is meaningless, but "We need to discharge the reactor's overflow capacitors" is still nondescript enough to be applicable to warp drives/fusion cores/whatever but actually means something understandable--we need to eject some excess energy from this device or it will fail/explode. Instantly tangible stakes presented in a way that does not take the audience out of the story The worst kind of Technobabble is when you describe something that only means "We have to hit a few buttons on a console and the colored lights will change back to normal, immediately fixing the problem". No only does the audience have no idea what was wrong, it doesn't feel like any actual effort went into to fixing the problem, retroactively reducing the stakes. If you want to sell the danger or potential of a situation, it should be something that can't be fixed by reading the instruction manual of the device the operators are presumably already familiar with.
"reverse the polarity on the flux capacitor" reverse means reverse polarity implies the direction of the dipole moment vector (to explain dipole moment vector, imagine a bar magnet, now draw an arrow from its south pole to the north pole, this arrow is the dipole moment vector, yes, dipole moment vectors are just arrows that point from the negative towards the positive, from south towards north, you get the idea, and this arrow gives you the polarity) flux: to explain flux, first we see what field lines are, if you remember the diagram of a bar magnet or recall that diagram of the magnetic field of the earth, you may remember those lines that represent the field, those are called field lines, for magnetic fields, they are magnetic field lines, for electric field, they are electric field lines, now imagine a plane surface (like a sheet of paper) and imagine those field lines going through this sheet of paper, flux is simply no. of field lines are going through this sheet per unit area, if a large number of field lines pass through the paper per unit area, the flux is larger, if less field lines pass throgh the paper per unit area, the flux is less Capacitor: is basically a device that stores electric charge, any conducting body can make a capacitor, example, imagine a metallic sphere carrying a charge of 1 Coulomb, that is a capacitor, if you connect it to wires, a current will flow through the wires for a very short duration and the charge will be neutralised, its how things like the flash in a camera work, which need a current to flow through a device for a very short duration the most common type of capacitor is a parallel plate capacitor (PPC) you can find it in a local electronics store now we all know what these terms mean, i think we can all agree that there is no such thing as a flux capacitor and it makes no goddamn sense how reversing the polarity on it would help save the ship
Obviously the best example of a Smart Character is Sherlock and his many adaptations. The Wrong way to write sherlock: -Notice a group of seemingly disparate details -Imply something based on those details -Repeat -Reinforce implication by painting a cohesive picture -Conclude based on evidence -Slightly inaccurate but mostly correct The RIGHT way to write sherlock: -Notice minor trivial detail -Guess wildly -Be Correct
This was perfectly timed as i was gonna write a smart character for my dnd campaign. On an unrelated note, do you think you can do a pirate episode in the next 24 hours?
It i kinda, that you can keep the attention where it should be while playing tricks to get it moving, maybe even reveal later. It doent have to e, but its at least an entertainment show.
Two scientists I really like are Doctor Light and Albert Wily. The two used to be friends until university, where Light's research on robots with free will was accepted by the university at Wily's expense. Light became a famous inventor thanks to the novelty of his research but ended up blaming himself for both Protoman and Wily going down a dark path. Meanwhile, Wily got so caught up on his idea being denied that he becomes more and more egotistical, to the point that he starts calling himself Doctor Wily despite never actually getting a doctorate. Wily also has an increasingly serious cash flow problem due to his constant attempts at making robots (to the point that he either makes them Junk Man level quality or just reprograms other robots and calls them his own) and giant bases. By the time the X series rolls around, it's implied Light no longer wants to fix their friendship and all but confirmed that Wily/Serges/Isoc's ego has grown so large that losing to a robot that isn't Zero makes him absolutely livid.
Remember, when writing a smart character you can work backwards. Instead of constructing a difficult situation and trying to figure out how a smart character can resolve it. You can come up with a smart solution and adjust the conflict or variables so that the solution makes sense. Thus, you don't actually need to have amazing analytical skills yourself. The character looks smart and the reader is none the wiser.
To be fair, "Reverse polarities on the flux capacitors" must make as much sense to starship engineers as "Reset to HEAD branch and perform a clean with -fdx" to software engineers.
On the note of an expert in one field not necessarily being knowledgeable about others, I saw a Tom Scott video recently where, in one section, he was interviewing a physicist about the synthesis of radioactive compounds. She discussed the physics side in very technical detail, but the chemistry side she just described as "and then the chemists work their magic". She didn't know how the chemistry side worked, because that's not her field. I've experienced that personally, working with air purifiers. I could go into technical details about the chemistry side of things, but things like explaining bacterial kill mechanisms or how they measure bacterial kills? That's biology, my knowledge in that area's rather lacking. I wish that was something we saw more often in fiction: an expert being asked a question, and just answering "fuck if I know, that's not my field". Only example I can really think of is Bones in Star Trek, and his signature protest of "damn it Jim, I'm a doctor, not a _________" Another thing I wish I saw more often, to reflect what real-life experts are like, is giving them _really_ strong opinions on really obscure topics. I've met people who are practically willing to throw hands over something only a few dozen people in the world are even aware of.
An alternate solution to the research issue, is to make your own sort of science, if it is a fictional world, you just gotta explain it well, in a simple but concise way that can be adapted to any situation since science is something that’s all imposing, it’s in every situation For me, I try a hybrid style, a mix between fictional science and real science, using just the more simpler aspects of real science in combination with my own interesting fictional science that the smart person can adapt in because I can give the smart person the same infinite intellect on the fictional science that I have since, as the creator, I’d know everything about it
A trope I’m not fond of: being smart/intelligent means you can’t be physically active/fit. Weak nerd, stupid jock trope. I’ve worked in military nuclear power. You have some beefy technicians with 4-5 1,000 pg tomes around them as they wave their hands around before pushing a button. Making call outs that would only sound arcane to someone who has no idea what’s going on. Those same folks can nerd out harder than other folks can. Even magic school stuff. During training, we studied all day, exercise in the afternoon, finish homework in the evening, get 1ish hours of off-time/relaxation. Just saying: you can be diverse if your characters.
1:50 i think this is a very good point as a lot of cases in movies or shows, when the story is bad or unengaging, people usually will be more critical towards the small details such as logical inconsistencies or minor plot holes, which would add up and make the overall quality terrible
Smart characters can be tricky because, the actions they take actually do need to be smart, logical, thought out. Its the difference between writing a character who the readers look at and think... "really? thats your plan?" and "wow, that could work". The bank heist in Die Hard with a Vengeance for example... wasn't just well thought out... It caught the FBI's eye... and they actually started asking questions of the writer "how he knew" about the subway tunnel, about the connections etc. Sometime you do need to research actual situations or "crimes", when working out a "ingenious tactic."
I'm currently writing a murder mystery where there's a team-up between two intelligent characters who have entirely different styles of deduction that cover for each other's weaknesses, with one of them being more concerned with observable reality and practical knowledge that lends itself well to picking up on smaller details, and the other being more or less out of touch with reality with a brain that generates endless theories for his investigative partner to pick through and determine which ones make the most sense. If not for this video, I never would've realized that these two should actually just both be omniscient geniuses who know everything immediately because they are just so smart. Like, dude, trust me. Just trust me. They're smart. You agree.
@@icecreamhero2375 Geniuses don't get sick. They outsmart the germs. Actual answer: There is one case toward the end where the endless theory generator is... unavailable. He's physically present but personal reasons leave him unwilling to assist. For the other investigator, this is the toughest case of her life as she tries to basically brute force her mind into doing the same thing his does. It's almost dramatic irony; she began the story resisting his attempts to help, but gradually got so used to it that investigating without him feels like investigating with half her brain. She's also at a general low point in the story due to recent losses and personal grievances; she nearly gives up the case entirely.
*Pro-tip:* Never let your genius be wrong! Instead of trying to show their intelligence by how well they adapt to unexpected situations, write it so that they always knew every situation that comes up and how to solve it before hand. Not lazy at all!
JP’s Inner Greed here. Let Audible help you discover new ways to laugh, be inspired, or be entertained. New members can try it free for 30 days. Visit www.audible.com/terriblewritingadvice or text terriblewritingadvice to 500-500.
Greed’s Audiobook Recommendations
I still recommend World War Z since it has an all star cast. Seriously the guy who plays the original Tron does a voice-over as does Mark Hamill. I guess Max Brooks knows everyone in Hollywood.
I also recommend Dresden Files. James Marsters gives an excellent performance that elevates the already good urban fantasy book series.
As much as it pains me to admit, the General is right. The Ciaphas Cain audio books are quite good with multiple talented narrators. A strong recommendation for anyone who likes Warhammer 40000.
For some non fiction, I recommend So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson and narrated by him as well. JP will need it in the future, I’m sure.
I did also enjoy the Expanse Series even if it did kind of lurch over the finish line. Then again, I’ve seen far worse endings to be sure.
Bruh 🤣
...inner?
Lol
Careful, Inner Greed. Even _you're_ not ready to take on the sheer power of Games Workshop's greed...
PLEEEEEEAAASE TALK ABOUT SUSPENSE!!!!!
"But I don't want to cure cancer. I want to turn people into dinosaurs."
Valid!
Is this a Killing Bites reference?
All you need to do to turn people into dinosaurs is make them notice that heir great-grandparents were right about the facts of life after all.
@@victordeluca7360 I thought it was Amazing Spider-Man.
Dr Ferdinand: 👀
"The military doesn't need physics and chemistry. It needs rockets and explosives!"
Perfection, utter perfection.
A lot of non-military people think that way. Soldiers should be roided-up, rock-stupid, thugs barely capable of forming a sentence, backed by extreme firepower. Strategy? Tactics? Knowing how stuff works? That's for nerds and wimps.
the random Jewish person in the shower at one point in history
I mean he's not wrong over hyping into experimental tech can be worse than just getting alot of guns and explosives even if there subpar
Ha ha. , not like you ned psysics or chemistry to make that more deadly.
@@marley7868 rockets and explosions were once the experimental tech
How to write smart characters: have them refer to animals by their full latin names for literally no reason whatsoever
Don't forget to have them say sodium chloride when referring to table salt, even tho table salt isn't made of just those 2 chemicals because it'd be inedible then
@@brunop.8745 hey take that back I like Jimmy neutron.... No wait your right he is a smart-ass
I want one to actually call some of the correct scientific names (that ones is literally:gorilla gorilla gorilla)
If they are super into animals it works. I love knowing the scientific/botanical names of my favorite animals and plants. but then again liking animals counts as a reason...
Takes me back to role-playing when people would say canis lupus and use the thesaurus alllll the time
No shade bless those rpers
I love it when one of the characters just assumes that the really smart scientist will surely have the answer to a question and the scientist response is something along the lines of "I'm an astrophysicist, why would I know about ancient alien death tongues?"
Thing that happens to me regularly. I am not a genius or super smart scientist, but have a good memory and am well read. In many cases I can offer something relevant if asked about a certain pool of topics..... But that leads to people mock me as all knowing and being scandalised when I do not know something about a topic I never claimed to have any level of knowlage of..... How leads me knowing about poisons or mental disorders to people assuming I am the one to ask questions about physics or promi travia?....
It astonishes myself what my brain can unearth at times but expecting someone with lots of knowlage in one topic to be all-knowing is stupid... Sometimes the clever one is not decided by virtue but by process of elimination.... And it is more often the case then I would like....
Being good at not falling for bs and predict how a story will go also does not mean one is a genius and master strategist. Way to many different skills and fields of knowlage get indiscriminately thrown togeather and theb"clever"one is supposed to excel in all of them without any rhyme or reason.....
'Dammit Jim I'm not a Doctor! I mean, I am but not that kind!'- Treasure Island
I have a running joke with one of my characters where whenever she's in trouble she goes to her lawyer mother for legal advice, only for her mom to be like "For the last time, sweetie, I'm not a criminal justice lawyer, I'm a COPYRIGHT lawyer!"
@@deen7530 as someone who's mom is a lawyer I find that hilarious, specially because that stuff does happen irl
Ironically, South Park did this really well in their parody of The Core. Cartman gets Randy on the team because he needs 'a scientist' and then he tells him to set up some sort of electrical system (I can't remember what it was).
Randy: "What? I don't know how to do that."
Cartman: "You're the scientist!"
Randy: "I'm a geologist!"
I hate it when Smart Characters will be like “There’s only a 32% chance we survive this, I did the math!” instead of using their vast intellect to actually get them out of the situation.
For one how do they quantify that number and why do they always succeed no matter how low that number is?
@@benrex7775 32% is not that low, to be honest.
@@carrot7868 If that happens once then yes. If that happens 10 times in a row we have a 0.001% chance.
@@benrex7775 randomness can be strange.
@@carrot7868 The problem is not randomness. The problem is that the author tries to make a person appear smart by making him say smart sounding stuff. And if we take the smart guy serious then we end up with unrealistic situations.
One of my pet peeves is when the smart character, usually a scientist, babbles on about a theory, and another character will just blankly stare at them, and reply "Ugh, in English, please?" It was funny once upon a time, but now reads as clichéd.
It can be funny if they instead quickly cut them off saying "English, four eyes!" and if Solid Snake says it
What if one day, the smart character replies with “I am speaking English” then rambles about the history of the English language
Response I want: "...that was English. And also your station is one where you should know all of those terms and more. Will I have to file the paperwork for your immediate dismissal from service?"
It could be revived a bit if the techno-expositing character, without batting an eye, switches to explaining in Old or Middle English (or as close as possible where scientific words don't have translations). Complete with Beowulf-esque background music.
What I usually hate is techspeak that just throws in random scientific terms or misuses them to string them together as a justification. That annoys the hell out of me since I can actually understand what all that means and it comes off as really distracting. The one exception I really know of is Kill la Kill, where whenever Inumuta says something overly long and scientific whatever he's saying actually adds up, more or less
How to write a smart character:
• Have them wear glasses
• Have them always inventing machines
• Make them the physically weakest of their team
• Love triangle consisting of their smart crush and a hot guy/girl pretending to yearn for them
Its weird but every smart character love triangle I can think of has a smart girl pretending to like the guy, or only interested in him as friend, while the hot girl of average intellect genuinely likes him but is afraid to admit it. Either cause she's shallow and afraid of what others might think, or more commonly because she's afraid she's not smart enough to maintain his interest, (or that she thinks they won't have anything in common) and thinks the other girl is a better pick for him.
An overwhelming majority of scientists don't focus on physical things, so making them jacked wouldn't really make sense.
Yep, that's typically how the majority of them are written. I'd love to see a subversion of this stereotype in the future.
The glasses must be at least size too large so they have to constantly push them up, also physically weakest but have visually great physique, especially the females, and bonus points for lolies.
Make them mispronounce "gigawatts".
Fun fact : the very first actor who played the doctor , when shown the Tardis , he asked the crew to show him what each button would do , because kids would notice if he was inconsistent with them
(Kids are actually pretty smart for things that have there attention than they are given credit for )
I feel like a way to show the character’s absent-mindedness would be for everything to just be labeled. Like, the scientist/engineer knows WHAT they need to do, but they just can’t keep straight WHICH button does it.
i did not know that. makes me appreciate hartnell even more
I think there could have been a case for the controls to not be consistent to show how time travel isn't exactly a trivial thing.
I think some were labelled so he wouldn't forget. Retakes were few and far between in those days.
Yep, like kids media can neglect a lot of worldbuilding details, but what gets attention, kid are the worst critics.
“In other words, the character doesn’t actually have to be smart, we just have to make them seem smart to the audience.”
That’s . . . actually great advice?
“Got all that? Good! Now throw it all away because we’re gonna cheat and use shortcuts”
Ah, there it is.
That is every single one of his videos lol.
Reels you in with useful information. minutes in you realize you've been had, but still stay because you realize it's a how NOT TO guide.
That is an accurate description of Chat GPT3, only the clueless believe it gives great answers and not just the equivalent of a compilation of 10 google searches. That AI is only an expert at gaslighting n00bs.
@@txorimorea3869 It's not even gaslighting, that would require intentionality. GPT is just putting words together based on statistics, it doesn't have the capacity to deceive anyone because it doesn't actually know what the words mean.
@@cringeconnoisseur6037 Agreed
basically Batman.
Everyone around him has to be stupid for hik to seem smart
What's really annoying is when the "smart" guy becomes dumb because the plot needs to happen.
Oh yeah
At very least explain it with Field Confoundment (I. E. "I'm an astrophysicist not a xenobiologist why would I know this‽") or have moments beforehand where lower stakes related issues come up and the character is shown to be on some shaky ground.
How to write smart characters: Make everyone else dumber than dirt on a dirty sea.
Tony Stark comes to mind
otherwise known as the Batman stupidity field lol
Like Idiocracy!
Every Isekai protagonist:
Zappodude more like raising of shield hero
If your making a tactical genius, there’s only three options:
A: Make every other officer incompetent
B: Have them make guesses about the enemy (That are always right)
C: Have them perform crazy, risky, and esoteric tactics (that of course, always work)
D: They somehow have some amazing understanding of how the enemy thinks which justifies why they do weird things that win even though it would be a bad move under most circumstances(see Empty Fort Strategy which works only if you're already a renown genius and people second guess their own actions).
Ah, General Mary Tzu.
Grand Admiral Thrawn from Star Wars is the best military genius character! Read the books!
*glares at "saga of tanya the evil"*
@@scragar or E, steal enemy's rules (People;s Booke) but still have a wrench thown because of unconventional tactics used by enemy (see Artemis Fowl and troll by LEP)
If late Game of Thrones taught me anything, it’s that the key to creating a smart character is having all the other characters say over and over and over again how dangerous and intelligent the smart character is often, and especially, when all the evidence in the actual story contradicts this idea.
You don’t have to worry about ACTUALLY crafting a strategic, cunning, meticulous planner when you can just have everyone else say that’s what they are. Much more straightforward!
I learned the very same thing from Legend of Galactic Heroes.
Lol
They did my boy Tyrion wrong
Who needs show dont tell
I think it was supposed to be part of Tyrion's arc to show that he's not as smart as he thinks he is.
*Fun Fact:* If a smart anime character finally found a solution to solve the problem, their glasses glows brighter than the thousand suns.
Or in The case of jojo, one piece and lupin the third make everyone be really dumb and smart at the same time
As someone who wears glasses, I can confirm that adjusting them makes me suddenly come up with an idea
Except Aizen. He ditched his glasses during his villain reveal.
@@MrDj232 He was just so smart that he ascended beyond glasses and switched to contacts.
@@jackmanleblanc2518 Given he eventually put on a body condom that also covered his eyes before essentially getting magical lasik surgery that changed them, this checks out.
Remember: if you want to write someone smart, you dont have to be smart. You have all the time you need to come up with a plan and then have the smart character do so in as little time as you need.
I find that a lot of writers are too lazy to even research though. Like if they're writing a story that takes place in space, they won't even bother to actually look up the actual scale of the universe. They'll portray the moon as being like a mile from the Earth, when in reality it's so much further, and they won't even bother to look up that distance to correct themselves.
Kaz Brekker approves of this comment
You kinda still need to be smart, you just have an advantage of not having a time limit and having the ability to problem-solve backwards, by coming up with great ideas first and then making sure the plot provides your characters with opportunities to actually use these ideas.
@@ShadeSlayer1911 I come up with basic explanations like "Ships are fast, so going between planets is akin to a 20-hour plane trip, which is why the cast doesn't leave the main planet too often because it's really expensive to explore the universe"
@@headphonesaxolotl that's fine. You don't need to explain in detail the universe and how it works, if that sort of thing doesn't come up often.
Smart people can't always teach. Sometimes their intelligence is more talent than effort, and it's pretty hard to walk others through solving a problem when you can just look at it and jump to the answer.
My teacher once said: "You can be the best on School but giving a class is hard"
Yeah I mean look at Snape in HP series. Is he a master in Potions and an inventor of spells? Yes. Does he teach efficiently usually to all? Not really. Unless you have the actual notes of his (6th book).
YESS! Try teaching someone your native language without saying "Idk, that's just how it is"
Or generally try teaching someone with a different way of thinking, they will not understand why the solution is obvious and logical to you, and you will struggle to break it down because to you it's one of the baselines.
@@Eric6761 Yup, smart people can give you basic simplifications and summarization in a conversation, but they are just as regular as anyone else when it comes to teaching.
And it can come down to lots of other things, too. People skills. Confidence. Hard to teach when you're shy and everyone is staring at you. Or just presentation skills! I once had a horrible teacher who was a brilliant mathematician. He mumbled in a monotone and stood in front of everything he wrote on the board at all times.
I once heard of two pretty neat way to make to make a character seem smart:
1. Have then solve a complex problem with a simple solution (or simplifying something very complex things to the point even the dumbest of doors could understand it in some way.)
Or 2: have them bring up the many problems a very simple idea could lead to by analyzing it,like yeah blowing up the castle's door might be a easy way to get in but what about the price of all the gunpowder they'll gonna need? The structural damage that might lead the whole thing falling down on them or the fact they can just enter trough open sewer system that is two steps around that corner,which then leads back to point 1.
When I write (I'm just a hobbyist) I have the character go through multiple solutions in their head and explain why he chose one over the others. This also helps address plotholes, for example, "why doesn't the character just assassinate the bad guy in his sleep?" "Because he has the nobles on his payroll and if he tried and failed, he'd get the death penalty."
I saw the tip of, do your rsearch how you could do that plan reasonable , and then have it a character say lik its easy.
But seeing through complex nonsense pointing out a simple solution works too i guess.
@@G102Y5568 There's also charaterization to factor in. "Why Does he not realize this woman is obviously manipulating him?" Because he's actually as dumb as a rock. "Why does this lord not make an alliance with the commander of the gate, and just engage in costly assault?" Because his pride refuses him to ally with a man who rose up from the common folk.
Even smart characters can have well characterized blind spots.
@@ineednochannelyoutube2651 Absolutely.
Alice from MGQ is point 2) through and through
Remember you can have 3 PHDs but common sense is still optional.
PhD is about obedience.
To be fair, once you study quantum physics, chemistry, and/or cellular biology/biochemistry, common sense becomes more of a hindrance. Quantum physics doesn't work in a way our brains evolved to understand, cell biology is a system engineered by RNJesus, and chemistry is just weird. Also you don't start studying this really hard stuff when you have the intelligence to make more money in an easier field unless there's already something wrong with you.
(Speaking as someone studying biochemistry and planning to get a PhD in it)
That said your point is completely valid.
As I read on a Demotivational Poster with Deadpool in it, "COMMON SENSE: actually so rare now, it's a goddamned superpower."
@@sophiedowney1077 I love this comment. Actually added to the video a lot. Thank you!
There are different types of intelligence. That is very true.
One of the most grating way (and obviously Mary Sue-ish) to write a smart character is having an actual career scientist/teacher/researcher/wtv try to deny said character's idea, only to have the character simply go "you're wrong, I'm smarter than you and therefore automatically right. I don't need to explain myself how, I just know better by being the protagonist".
AKA the "Batman can outsmart everyone including literal omniscient characters just by the fact that he's Batman, but also let's ignore how he's not smart enough to solve Gotham's corruption".
hell yeah, i hate this so much about the Justice League as a whole. They have to purposefully nerf everyone to suck up Batman.
Superman in his own series is extremely smart, can create freaking robots, machines and gear that help him combat outer world threats.
Flash can think, process and learn things super fast in his own story,...
But when Batman appear, Superman is nothing more than a potentially emotionally unstable brute of the team, and the flash is nothing more than the punch line/clown of the Justice League. This is why ill never take DC, JL and batman as a whole seriously, because they need to nerf everyone else in order to make Batman look badass
The dude who can put a collar on the entire JL, stand face to face with DarkSeid and solve some 5th dimensional murder case or something cant even think of a solution to lock up the villains in Gotham for good
The usual copout to that is that Batman is brilliant but also very damaged and uses his "crusade" to justify his hobbies rather than truly devoting himself to his stated goals. He won't solve systemic corruption because he wants to solve metahuman mysteries and beat people up, not sit at a desk compiling airtight cases to get corrupt judges off the bench or extensively trace organized crime money laundering. He doesn't solve Gotham because he either deep down doesn't think he can, or doesn't want to.
Or the moral thing where he doesn't trust himself not to turn gotham into a totalitarian fiefdom if he took it upon himself to fix all its problems and impose final justice personally. He's too devoted American neoliberal philosophy to wholeheartedly take those steps. And when he toes that line it tends to backfire spectacularly!
It did always bug me how one week he's punching literal gods in the face, and the next he gets nearly killed by gangsters
Aka, trust the experts.
Got to love how the most overpowered superhero is the one who is just a normal guy with a infinite bank account (when he's not broke for a story that will be undone anyways)
Don't forget the "mastermind" archetype, who can be written as smart by simply handing them a copy of the script so they know everything ahead of time! It doesn't matter if there's no way they could have learned about some of those things with the instruments at their disposal, and you certainly don't have to show them gathering evidence or thinking anything through. Just let them be mysteriously vague about how they've solved everything and handwave away that audience skepticism by insulting their intelligence.
L from death note? Or any detective?
@@Eric6761 really? Nothing against this assertion, but my immediate guess was kira from death note.
He feels way more like a sentient script, than a character, the longer this goes on
@@dimitriosdrossidis9633 i just talked about L because he would be the most recognizable as a detective but yeah Kira is waaaayy too conscious about script the longer it goes on
And then you have Artemis Fowl which actually does steal rules of the enemy ( the Peoples' Booke) but still has troll and Holly having still an acorn is possesion (1st something against the LEP rule and 2nd as something he did personally interfere and put a precaution in form of of freshly made concrete in cell, which proved not enough) thrown a wrench in his plans but still succeed due to badass subordinates xD
@@Eric6761 Nah L is just really good at Picking up Clues he isn't that OP. Also Light killed him.
"The only impressive thing in terms of size is their own ego."
*I never knew how much I would need to hear this line.*
JP totally found the word Jejune while looking for synonyms for this script and loved it.
That inclusion of hjejune, was not jejune.
@@marocat4749 You didn't look up jejune, did you.
@@jimluebke3869 why would you jejune that
@@yungstilla5685 I didn't know it was jejunable.
@@jimluebke3869 looking jejune up was jejune at best, which is ironic
The fact it has only been 3 days since your last upload and you still made another one is astounding to me.
Preach, JP is really treating us ahead of 2023!
Ditto, friend.
He probably made both in advance
@@-starrysunrise-2908 maybe, but it's still cool to not have to wait a month for each episode.
I think it's greed's machinations, who knows what he is scheming again
Don't forget that the smart character must always be a scientist or engineer. They can never be a humanities nerd, especially not...*a writer.*
Wait, wasn’t that the entire premise of Castle? And Psych?
@@GrndAdmiralThrawn and Murder She Wrote
Do you know what they call a smart humanities nerd? An engineer with a minor in humanities.
And they must be both scientists AND engineers, despite the fact that scientists and engineers have almost no overlap in skill sets because science and engineering are completely different fields. (Broadly speaking, scientists do the discovering and theorizing while engineers take what scientists found and scale it up/make it actually useful. This is a broad generalization though so take it with several grains of salt)
@@sophiedowney1077hard disagree. As someone who will soon have a masters in chemical engineering, they’ve pretty much tracked us into both. It’s not that you’re wrong as much as it is somewhat overlapping it’s just hard to tell because despite wanting to be a process engineer they’ve forced me into research so we are all more or less a mix of each.
Also be aware of "Sherlock Syndrome" where the smart character knows everything in every field and is a walking encyclopedia of omnipotence. He speaks 7 languages, understands the history of typewriters, can identify references in classical music, can spot flaws in a car engine, is an expert in multiple martial art fighting styles and hundreds more unrelated fields of study. Despite the fact that smart people tend to be smart only in a select field.
To be fair, there was a brief time in the 19th Century when a sufficiently disciplined and intelligent person could be familiar with nearly the entire corpus of knowledge. Doyle also had Holmes consult encyclopedias and collect information. (He was also helping invent the detective genre, and it shows.)
Then the world really got cranking and technical and scientific knowledge increased to the point that nobody could keep up.
Can't say I disagree exactly, even though "Study in Scarlet" basically starts with Watson noting down with how much commonplace stuff Holmes doesn't know (eg. that the earth rotates around the sun) Anything that cannot possibly be of interest to his crime solving is not worth remembering to him, he specializes, though in a large field.
I'm not definitely sure what I think, I'm going to be careful and say, well, maybe it's possible for Sherlock. It probably sounds more than it is, for his way of thinking, this might be easy to keep in mind simultaneously, just thinking a bit I could name numerous things that aren't my designated field but that I know a lot about. Not saying I'm like Sherlock, lol, I'm just a nerd. Just meaning, I didn't have that problem when looking at Sherlock bc it just felt like he spend his whole life expanding and learning more knowledge which was immediately boosted by the skill of deduction. Still something to be wary of though, for sure. The more you specialize, the less time for different fields.
Not exactly. People who ONLY have "book smarts" tend to hyper specialize in one field. However, there are different kinds of intelligence. The smartest people I've ever known weren't scientists or professors (in fact, those people in my experience were really thick in the head over most things, even basic things. Also they tended to be extremely arrogant, though not always). Rather, they were pretty "normal" people. Blue collar workers, factory workers, etc. They knew so many things and were able to think incredibly deeply, and would say genuinely profound things, yet they were able to explain their thoughts and knowledge to anyone, even children, in ways anybody could understand. They also, most of the time, didn't really think they were that smart and would be genuinely confused that everybody else didn't know the things they knew, or considered the more deep and complex ideas and ideologies they had, in a humble way of course.
Omniscience means all knowing, if that's what you meant
A FUCKING BOOMERANG
Honestly "sell the illusion" tip encapsulates the entire storywriting trade
You are supposed to make your story so awesome it generates margin of willing suspension of disbelief in the viewers, and then make it even more awesome WITHOUT crossing it.
Internal consistency above external, but being externally "muh sci fi realism" accurate is a nice bonus too as long as it won't tread on quality of rest of the components
My favorite smart character I ever used had a tendency to do rather than explain and I liked to use it for comedy. "I'd _love_ to spend the next nine hours condensing my entire college education down so that I could explain how this works to you, but it'll be easier if I just tell you that it's magic so that you'll shut up and I can get some goddamn work done."
bruh lol where is this character from?
You've just reminded me of Tech from Star Wars: The Bad Batch. It was practically a running gag for a while that he kept not telling the others crucial plot info because he "thought it was obvious."
Wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff
Good idea! It's mine now
There’s a term for a writing trope called “Loves The Science”
It’s where the writer wants to write a character who’s passionate about some field of STEM (Science Technology Engineering & Mathematics) but the writer doesn’t actually KNOW anything about those subjects, so their character never goes into detail about what they love about science or why.
This is really bad in Marvels Iron Heart comic. The main character is told that she is too smart and genius to be around normal teenagers and that she loves the science and engineering, but it never shows us these things besides her vaguely putting a wrench in some "complex device". Extra points when there are useless holograms everywhere displaying "data".
@@spacejunk2186 it’s kinda ironic how writers will show characters looking at holographic data displays to show how smart they are, when it’s honestly more impressive to see a character derive meaning from a giant block of computer code. Like, what’s more impressive? Cutting down a tree with an Axe, a Chainsaw, or your Bare Hands?
That makes me want to create a character who likes to look like their into science, but doesn't actually want to study it.
And the writer is too lazy to find a top university group on that exact subject and ask them a question online. Like "what you like and hate on your research field".
Is that on TVTropes or did you make that up?
You forgot a vital method of writing smart characters: Making everyone else dumb to make them seem smart. See: Any story where only Batman can figure out the Riddler's riddles.
Also having them anticipate things and having them fall exactly how they anticipated even when many other outcomes are just as probable.
Ah yes. The Sherlock Holmes route
@@panlis6243 You just pinned down what I dislike about sherlock. It was such a vague feeling but that totally explains it
Come to think of it a lot of detective stories could spice things up by having the police be occasionally useful, sometimes even revealing unexpected things the detective must accept / reinvent
@@tsm688 That's a pretty common critisism of Sherlock. I've heard it even before I started reading books and that definitely checks out. I found that the story is much better enjoyed if you just pretend that Sherlock's "deduction" is just some magical ability that doesn't involve actual logic.
Still I wish the author wouldn't be so focused on constantly showing off how smart Sherlock is
@@panlis6243 especially funny when you think about the author's delusions of grandeur later. He took Sherlock's method of logic and used it to "prove" the existence of pixies ...
Or make the smart character seem smart by making the answer completely unsolvable but having the character figure it out anyways based on a series of logical fallacies and made up observations not available to the reader
im kind of proud that i understood all of JP's word salad example on the first listen despite not being a native English speaker
Kinda pathetic on my end, since I am a native English speaker.
@@almondjoy4938 Well, you do tend to expand your vocabulary greatly if you learn to obtain CAE or especially CPE. In opposite to many of the native English speakers (CPE owner with hobby in translations from, and to, native language (Polish) to English here). However, part of being proficient in communication is beign able to properly adjust the level of conversation to person you are trying to speak to.
You can use higher level vocabulary to someone who you know is intelligent or when you need to use technical/nuanced language, but when you speak with layperson/ person who has lower level of knowledge or lower proficiency of language you are speaking in, you would use simpler language to convey your ideas efficiently.
Tip: oftentimes those fancier words would have more specific and detailes meaning that would suit exactly the idea you try to sell, but you run the risk of other not knowing them and going nowhere with it as the result).
I think th most important skill ther is to ignore bs and try getting what has substance. Makes any word salad less bad. And he is actually having a point, if unnessesary long, unlike most word salads.
"word salad"
Definitely adding that to my vocabulary
“I never met a smart person who bragged about their intelligence”
That’s because every smart person in existence thinks they are of average skills and that plenty of people can do what they do.
My weirdest experience is always going "What, I thought everyone knew that?" when I do something everyone thinks is smart.
Imposter Syndrome hits actually talented people the hardest
“What, like it’s hard?”
Tell that to Elon Musk. LOL That actually proves the point.
@@icecreamhero2375 difference is, he suffers a big old problem of having a good pr team, thinking he’s smarter than he actually is, and some good old Hubris
Writing smart characters is easy, or at least it comes naturally with the process. The plan or witty comeback that took you months to craft took your character seconds. You can manipulate time in your screenplay. That's really all it takes.
I'd like to add one thing. I agree that smart people are quicker at thinking of something. But that also changes their way of thinking. Smart people are less repetitive and are less patient when people are repetitive.
If a smart person explains something then he gives the most crucial concepts of it once and thinks you understand it. Also he might draw comparisons to other things which have the same underlying concepts but seem quite different on the surface.
If a dumb person explains something then they focus on the symptoms and the superficial aspects. And they combine that with repeating it a bunch of time to memorize it. They might also draw connections to other things, but the connections are more related to the symptoms and how it appears on the surface.
@@benrex7775 Smart people may bungle their explanations by drawing too many comparisons, because the comparisons make the subject matter clearer for them but confuse their audience. They may also give their explanations too quickly, failing to insert the proper amount and/or length of pauses to give their audience time to digest the information. In addition, they may start their explanations in the wrong place. They may explain the underlying principle before discussing the different ways said principle can manifest, or vice versa, thus leading the audience to tune out the first half of their explanation because they have no frame of reference for it yet and be completely underwhelmed by the second half.
@@sarahvunkannon7336 I can see that too.
@@benrex7775What you say is completely wrong. It's simply based on your narrow definition of what intelligence means.
There are many ways that peoples brains and thinking works. Some work much slower, and may still be far more intelligent and think deeper than a person with really quick wit. Also something that someone understands as superficial or repetitive can be way different in meaning, context or depht than someone else understands it to be. It only relates to others intelligence based on how well they can understand what is being said. But it's up to them to actually try.
Which relates your point of getting annoyed by repetition: Was it repetitive, or did you discard it before you could figure out what was the point? Was other person being thick and talking beside the point, or were you actually talking different things from to the get go. Or did you just miss the difference in point of view.
Debating things is fun and interesting, because people can have so vastly different ways of seeing things.
@@jhutt8002 I agree that being smart can have various aspects to it. I usually use intelligent as a loose synonym to IQ. Being smart also includes being knowledgeable, being educated, being wise, being curious, being creative, understanding humans, understanding world views and so on.
Also what a person is interested in hugely influences of how smart someone appears to be.
Based on what you say you sound like a person who has always spent time in the presence of people with a similar standard deviation of IQ. Have you ever talked to someone with an IQ of at least 2 standard deviations higher than you. And have you ever talked to someone with an IQ of at least 2 standard deviations lower than you? _(2 Standard deviation = 30 IQ points)._ I know people like this in both directions and I interact with them on regular basis. The difference is large enough that this type of generalization starts to make sense. Of course there is always some variance in everything. There can be highly intelligent people with world views so dumb that they believe in the most stupid ideas without seeing the obvious. Or a person who is curious and hard working can compensate a lot when it comes to IQ.
PS. I don't intend to say that people with little intelligence are less valuable or less interesting to be around. It is just that this specific aspect is the way I described it according to my experience. It's not just about not getting their point when they say it. It's about hearing the same point or same question for months at a time.
this made me feel like a badly written "smart" character
10/10
Felt called out at the Big Words part
@@appleg.3218same ☠️
I like how there are actual bits of good writing advice that you give, both in JP's sarcastic dismissal of good ideas, or with the metaphor about the magician to talk about how you can write a smart character without needing to be so yourself
JP used to link his honest thoughts in the description. I wish he still did.
@@matityaloran9157 I wish there were more of them too. more good ideas instead of constant negativity
Also remember that the smart character must be smart in everything, regardless of their actual occupation or field of study. It’s not like you can have a bunch of different smart people such as chemists, mathematicians, and historians who defer to each other when outside their own area of expertise.
And if they actually are polymaths versed in many fields, never show them thinking and making sense of the information or crossreferencing from different sources in any way shape or form, just have them be gods that can piece together vastly different pieces of information in a whim with no struggle!
Lol your username is basically someone like what your comment is describing
This makes me think of scientist characters that can just do anything. They are all the best at Robotics, physics, biological engineering. I’d like to see a story where a scientist is force to engineer something out of their field like someone who makes robots try to apply their knowledge to Bio Engineering
One way to depict a smart character is to have them come up with a plan that requires a lot of variables (that he/she can't predict or control) all go in the protagonists' favor, then when they try it, it succeeds, and everyone calls it "genius". In fact, make sure all the smart character's plans always succeed.
You don't want the audience to assume this is due to chance, though--first make sure the smartypants says "We have to account for every possible variable" so that the audience understands how much brain energy they used for this flawless plan
any good plan crafting implies taking as many possibilities of failure into account and prepare corrections. Having a character devise a plan, then progressively showing along it happening how they imagined outcomes (even unexpected ones) and found solutions or alterations for it can do wonders. Readers will try that game too, so impressing them is really effective.
@@benjaminthibieroz4155 True, but there's a difference between having a character say "We need to account for ever possiblity" and showing him/her accounting for every possiblity. If after saying that we only show them accounting for 3-4 of say 12-15 possibilities, then pretend that's all of them, and have the plot validate them, then that would be bad writing. So yes, it can be done right, but it can also be done wrong.
There are 2 problems with this approach. The first is that the character always gets lucky, and the other is that every character pretends that the result was predetermined. One way to fix it is to have them admit that their plan is risky and have them suffer failures a few times. That one guy in the group who everyone only turns to when they are desperate because of the riskiness of his plans would actually be pretty read or watch.
@@ari3903 I think the initial comment was sarcastic
In a manhwa I'd read, "Beware of the Villainess", there was a fun take on this. There was a character described as a genius in the original story, but the main character notes that he's actually not that smart in reality, because the author wasn't smart enough to actually write him as smart. Fun stuff!
It's the guy with the name Peacock right?
11:51 Mispronouncing big words isn't bad; it can just mean they only learnt it from books and not from speech, which might mean they know more about it than any of their peers.
As a person who has a much bigger book count than person-I've-spoken-to-in-real-life count, I have a few embarrassing moments related to this. I was so disappointed when I found out the c in scintillating wasn't pronounced. Also, yeah, I'm sure I sounded like an idiot.
cope take learn to speak
"There's only one thing left to do, I'm running for federation president!" This show has officially jumped the shark and I love it.
yeah was expecting more of a coup (like seriously what corrupt government fires its whole military in one go and expect to stay in power more than a few days)
but nice subversion
Well Lex Luthor did run for President solely to troll Superman and he is def a genius xD
Dojyan~
Dojyan~
Has anyone else seen a smart character who questions if they’re smart because they don’t also have the kind of intelligence everyone else seems to have (mainly social intelligence/practical knowledge)? Maybe I’ve just been looking in the wrong places, but I’ve had trouble finding them
(Edit: Recommendations would be appreciated if you happen to have any :) )
I believe Artemis Fowl did curse his puberty to hell and asked Butler repeatedly if it is normal to have lapses of judgement during it and the adrenaline rushes. Also asked Butler how to deal with apology to Holly for the end of the second novel, and still was being awkward as hell.
Fairly obscure, but there's an "idiot" side character in Star Trek called Rom, and he gradually becomes essential to the plot. Also, I've heard secondhand that one of the people involved with inventing the limpet mine was usually dismissed as unintelligent by those who didn't know him well, and didn't seem to disagree with that assessment despite his own brilliant ideas, but I'm afraid I don't have a name or any sources to give for that.
Hanekawa Tsubasa from the Monogatari series comes to mind. Although she's impossibly, supernaturally intelligent because of... reasons, she's convinced she's nothing special. Great example of a truly smart character written by a truly smart author.
@@PrototypeSpaceMonkeymono in the wild… “I don’t know everything, I only know what I know.”
One thing I'm surprised you didn't mention - the idea of being 'smart' can be split into two parts: wit and knowledge.
Wit refers here to the ability to rapidly make useful conclusions out of the data points they have.
Knowledge is just how many of those data points you have.
One can emulate wit in their writing by thinking for a long time and considering a problem the characters are facing from many different angles, maybe even asking others how they'd solve it given the information they have access to, and then having the smart character come up with your final, refined plan to solve that problem really quickly.
And don't forget! If you do manage to write a smart character who's relatable and lovable, make sure to give them no screen time!
I've seen you below a few comments here and appreciate your insight. Since you are here I assume you like reading. I can recommend a book to you. It's called "Forty Millenniums Of Cultivation". I recommend that book because the author is quite a smart guy and it is apparent in the plots which his characters have. Also it has a well thought out world building. You can read it online for free but it might take a while. According to my reading speed its a bit less than 600h. I've read about a third of it so far.
The genre is a mix between sci-fi and a cultivation novel.
About Exposition Puppets, I sort of ran into this issue with my own fanfiction. Since it was from the protagonist perspective expounding the story's events to an anonymous party, I had difficulty in trying to have him recount the events succinctly and within character, which ultimately led to the guy just rambling and bloating chapter to unimaginable degrees.
My solution was to just have the second person become impatient and interrupt whenever the rambling started.
Based.
@@forixiom7410 based on what?
69 likes xd
@@valhatan3907 Based has gained a second meaning recently. It's mainly used by Authoritarian Rightists (which can range from simple Paleoliberals all the way to Totalitarians, and everything in between). By saying that something is based, without saing that it is based on something else, you agree with it. However, this new meaning has not erased the old meaning of the word. Both are being used across the internet.
@@valhatan3907 A true story.
One thing about writing academics: A really good shortcut to making them dump exposition without iut feeling boring is to give them a niche subject that they are really, REALLY passionate about. Don't let your resident nuclear engineer rattle down how your own ship's reactor works, let them have an angry rant about what idiot configured the reactor of the ship next to it in the fleet formation that it produces those kinds of readings on its signature when increasing the output
Another way to write a smart character is to nerf the intelligence of everyone else in the cast: make sure no one else ever proposes the most obvious solution to the problems they face, and have their minds blown when the smart character finally comes up with it at the last second.
And that gets on my nerves...
1:04 Wait, this is supiciously good advice. Has JP reached a more nuanced understanding o-
1:59 Oh, there it is. That males more sense.
males?
@@andrasfogarasi5014 makes. Probably a typo
I believe it females more sense, but that's just my _too sense._
It's "makes"
In English, bro
@@GenericProtagonist7 so, it's actually "femakes"?
_Ah yes, the invention of language._
Dont forget, being smart means your character can calculate ANYTING with his mind, even the movement of the air molecules in air... Without any needed tool
Edelgard from Fire Emblem Three Houses is my go-to example of a well-written intelligent character. She isn't intelligent because she can prattle off technobabble or engineer a gigantic contrived conspiracy that only works perfectly because random plot elements all align perfectly, she is intelligent because she repeatedly shows she can string together simple plans and change them on the fly based on new information and unseen setbacks. She is often played a bad hand and sometimes her plans are upended because of something she never expected, but she remains calm and her moves always make sense given what she would know in the moment.
Nothing irks me like a smart character that seems invulnerable to outside factors. Like Batman when he's with the Justice League or the Cumberbatch Sherlock
I agree, and add that we get that even more in 3 Hopes. Since you get to see more of the actual war there than you do in 3 Houses, there's a lot more opportunity to show her character, and Edelgard especially shines for it. I love both of the Fodlan games so much, and I hope that the upcoming release of Engage doesn't stop them from making DLC for 3 Hopes, it deserves more and I'm not ready for the Fodlan era to be over yet
Or even Claude, where like edelgard he can set up alliances and persuade people. He also will research things and get to know the area and people . Claude(and Yuri to extend) is more emotional intelligent.
Ah yes, Xanatos Speed Chess
Reach for my hand, I soar away ....
One advantage writers have in writing intelligent characters - even ones the writer considers smarter than themselves - is that the writer can spend hours, days or even weeks coming up with ideas or plans. The character within the story can then have those ideas or plans in a fraction of the time.
They can also search topics or literally just ask a bunch of other people how to solve a particular problem. A fictional character can literally have the output of a hundred people brainstorming for a few minutes.
If one's prerogative is to inculcate the illusion of sagacity, the foremost method is to intersperse one's parlance with supererogatory sesquipedalian circumlocution. Because that's how smart people talk.
Props for sneaking "irregardless" into your sesquipedalian fusillade!
What's wrong with that, it's a perfectly cromulent word/s
Truly a professional at mastication, always so articulate and homunculus.
Could we talk about how his ego has a physical existence?
It was the real cosmic horror all along
1:44
*Sleight, meaning swiftness, not slight.
I will now proceed to write several novels including only smart characters after such a major ego boost.
2:24 As a wisdom says: "The smart person is the one who knows there will always be something he doesn't know".
8:26 that being said, the very similar torturous experiments of Japan's "mad science" division, Unit 731, were considered valuable enough by the United States that they let a lot of their members of the hook in exchange for the data they collected.
In that case...
scientists in the labs of superpowers doing morally vague science aren't mad psychiatrically, nor chaotic like the movie clishe. Both superpowers and science like discipline, so an LE personality is more suitable. Maximum - a bit weird around socially.
Working on biological weapons or a nuke actually requires a lot of extra discipline. Look up the rules of biohazard lvl 5 lab.
"JAPANESE SCIENCE IS THE WORLD FINEST!"
As one thing I personally like to say: A smart character should be used as a wink and a nod for the audience/reader/etc who have pieced enough together on their own, while bringing anyone else not quite in the know up to speed, without completely ruining any plot twists. To see examples of this, watch/read any really good whodunit/murder mysteries.
That's an interesting thought.
This exactly, it is what makes the Sherlock novels really enjoyable; the reader have "equal" chance in solving the case.
I tend to outright avoid writing notably 'smart' characters - mostly just focusing on people of average intelligence - because I am, by all conceivable metrics, kind of an idiot.
I feel the same way. Except I like to write dumb characters, not even average intelligence. It's sort of fun that way, because it's easy to give those characters a moment to shine, when everyone around them has gotten used to assuming that they're too stupid to understand anything.
That's cool too :) Honestly, a character doesn't have to be smart to be likeable.
The only bit of advice this video seems to be missing is that your characters should have one or more non-specified PHDs and have earned them all at a well known prestigious college, like Harvard. Or Yale if you're feeling spicy. Also they should have earned all that before 25, ideally no later than 20. Unless you have a young target audience in which case then you should scale the age back even more.
0:34 I love the little thrawn off to the side, he's probably my favorite smart character.
Just remember to always tell the audience that a person is smart even when their actions contradict it.
Their*
Sad that it happens in real life too, lol
@@luizcastro5246 well I never claimed to be one.
@@chrisschirripa5917 Sansa Stark after season 6?
@@boozecruiser Maybe its because she is the least ruined, but sansa isnt th one thinking of there.
All the characters I write are just as smart as me! Now that I think about that, that's probably not a good thing.
I think that is a good thing. It is difficult to write characters which think different than you do. This makes it that your characters are more realistic. If you were to write people with a different intelligence level you are bound to make it wrong and make it feel unnatural. But if you try to bring in some variety to the intelligence then I can give you a few tips. I have thought of that topic every now and then and I might have certain insights which are new to you. I hope I didn't write too much. I had to split the comment due to the character limit of the RUclips comments. :-P
By the way I'm in very male dominate environments so that might have a bit of an influence on what I write here. Also even though I would love to write stuff, I rarely do it so my comments are just from an observer point of view and I don't know how to use it as a writer.
Smart people are way quicker at understanding something. Dumb people need to hear it several times to understand it.
A really smart person takes a look at it, compares it to a seemingly unrelated thing and notices that they have the same underlying reason for why they work. After that one look he has understood it. If he tries to explain it to someone he just explains the underlying reason and skips everything else. Since that was enough for him to understand it he assumes the same applies to the other people.
A really dumb person doesn't grasp most difficult concepts. They understand enough to go through daily life. Whatever they need to understand they look for how the effects are and repeat them long enough to memorize it. And that memorizing process can take months.
As you see intelligence is not just about how quick you notice it but it also influences other aspects of life. For example a smart person hears it once and from then on looks at it as a given and finds it annoying if it is repeated again. The thinking of a dumb person is mostly about repeating stuff so that they can understand it.
So far I've only focused on intelligence. With intelligence I mean IQ or pattern recognition. If you want to get a better grasp of it try to make a friend who is 40 IQ points smarter than you and one who is 40 IQ points dumber than you. Then it starts to get quite obvious. The problem with smart people is that their behavior is probably adjusted to interacting with people of normal intelligence since they are around them all the time since young. Because of that their natural way of thinking is covered up with an act which is more approachable by a person of normal intelligence. It is not a perfect act but enough to work in most situations. So perhaps you should find two friends who are both 40 IQ points smarter than you and look how they interact with each other.
But smart is not just about having a high or low IQ.
- I've seen scientists and engineers who are very successful, but according to my judgement they have only a slightly above average intelligence. They compensate a lack of IQ with curiosity, persistence and experience. With those traits you can get quite far. Never underestimate them.
- Then there is the world view. Let's take a simple example. Peter intentionally hurts a person just for the joy of it. Paul sees that. His world view assumes that all humans are good. Since Paul is a smart guy who likes to have a consistent world view he finds a solution: The environment causes Peter to do such a horrendous action. And now Paul is trying to find an reason how the environment caused Peter to do this atrocity. As Paul is a smart guy he finds a lot of things which might cause Peter to do it. But all of them are wrong and those wrong conclusions cause Paul to fail to predict the next action of Peter. By the way this can be a problem in foreign policy. For example China might have different global warming goals than Germany.
This is just one specific example of how the world view can influence our reasoning. Another example would be about the left/right divide. Left leaning people think that we should help the poor by giving them money. After all if you are in debt you can't get your life back on track. But they miss that just handing out money does not motivate people to start being self dependent. Right leaning people on the other hand notice that just throwing money at the poor does not motivate them to get the life in order. Their approach is to give them a job. And they miss that some people are in such a bad mental state that they are not capable of working at a job. Both see the same problem and want to help but fail to do so for different reasons.
- EQ. Although EQ is a dubious concept psychologically speaking, Emotional intelligence is a thing which exists. If you don't pay attention to your emotions at all you can either bury them deep until you break down or you can be a volatile bomb ready to explode in them most inconvenient situations. People who have their emotions under control are capable of listening and reacting to their emotions when they are helpful and putting them on pause when they get in the way.
- Knowledge of human nature. Humans are not machines or mathematical functions. Some people are good at prediction how humans react and some are bad with it. Some use that to manipulate humans and rise in society while others use that to help other humans or understand themselves better. _(I don't want to imply that rise in society due to knowledge of human nature is always a manipulative thing. It can be but does not have to be)_ By the way if you want to have a bit of inspiration of human nature then I can recommend things like 16personalities for general personality traits or the socio-sexual hierarchy for how men behave in a group.
- Rhetoric. Some people are very good at giving speeches and convincing people of what they want. They don't try to make a logical case for why things are in a step by step manner. They are masters in inducing emotions in the listener, often through the use of telling stories. This can be used for good (most likely your favorite teacher) or for bad (most dictators).
- Topic of interest. Let's say I have a highly intelligent farmer who is creative, innovative, well read, persistent and so on. He puts 110% into his work and is successful in what he does. But he doesn't have the aspiration of making a nationwide farming chain. After all his job can feed the family and if he were to expand he would have to start making more management related work. Now we have a nuclear physicist who knows the theories which the teachers taught him but he does not do any research on his own and he is not really that good at coming up with new ideas. Who appears smarter? Most people would say the nuclear physicist just because of his choice of interest.
- Wisdom. Actually I don't yet know what wisdom is. My current definition is something like this: _"A respected person who agrees with you and is capable of explaining things in a simple manner."_ I think wisdom is often related to a person who is high in a social hierarchy. And it doesn't matter how wise someone is, if they have a different enough world view compared to the listener then people just think of him as a cult leader. And in the end what makes us think a person is wise is his speaking skills. I deliberately didn't write _"[...] is capable of explaining _*_complex_*_ things in a simple manner."_ Wise words don't have to be complex. They don't even have to make sense. They just have to agree with what you wanted to say but couldn't.
To end my comment of I want to write about writing characters of different smartness.
I don't know how you write your characters, but if you want to make them a bit more different from each other you could for example say that one character is very good at noticing how people feel (knowledge of human nature + EQ) while another one is good at explaining things (rhetoric + wisdom). But the person good at explaining things first has to go to the person with a high intelligence (intelligence + generally social) as this is the one who is the one who actually understands the situation.
Or you could make a very smart person (intelligence + persistence + introvert) who is just interested in some weird side topic which has no relevance to the story. And everyone keeps distance from him because they don't really know how to communicate with him and he has no patience to explain everything three times. Perhaps one arc requires them to interact with him. Please just don't change his character afterwards in a way where they force him to participate in their activities or he does so of his free will. I always dislike it if authors do so. I don't change from introvert to extrovert because of some group project. And if people force me to spend more time with them I'm not happy that I don't have my me time anymore. Such a character prioritizes working alone on his topic of interest with no disturbance over almost anything. More plausible reactions could be for example, that an extroverted person wants to include this person in all activities and he runs away. A more socially adapt person reminds the extrovert that his behavior is not helpful. But since they now know each other better they now greet each other in the hallway and if they have a problem which they can help they ask each other. The introvert first tries to do everything he can until he asks them while the extrovert might run to the introvert every time when it is moderately related.
And then there is a person who is dumb. If it is in a school setting then the dumb person has to compensate by being extremely hard working. If it is some non-school setting no such compensation is needed. This person can go perfectly through life and understands the necessary thing and has even a good world view which makes him make surprisingly accurate predictions. But whenever this person talks it is on similar and very repetitive topics. He always asks the same questions and the life stories he tells are mostly known by the second chapter. The only reason to increase the number of stories is due to him trusting the group more. You could use that person to introduce new plots. For example this person suddenly comes and asks about a word he picked up. Everybody else heard it before and went on. But due to this person asking about it all the time they notice that it is actually quite relevant. Here the motive of the dumb person was just to figure out that new word he heard means and it takes him an entire chapter. But the rest of the group notice thanks to him that there is more to it than they first thought. And the reason why the others including the intelligent guy didn't notice is because they had a different world view which didn't allow for that anomaly to happen. Thanks to the dumb guy they noticed that anomaly and expand their world view a little.
I gave you a bit of an overview on the topic of smart. But this does not come as a replacement of knowing such people personally. Especially in the case of dumb people. If you get a dumb person wrong it has a high risk of feeling that you are looking down on him. Give that person very positive character traits. And don't make this person vary in intelligence. Keep the being dumb at a constant rate. Perhaps make him more of an observer so that he doesn't start to annoy the readers.
Ah yes, the greatest struggle of writing smart characters: They can only be as smart as the person who wrote them...
I've thought of this when it comes to detectives, I feel like that could make a good follow-up.
When you want to write a scientist but you are atrociously bad at math and would struggle with IKEA instructions:
this isn't actually 100% accurate, as a person who's not super smart can still use their experiences esp with smarter/cleverer people (or just straight up anomalous occurrences) to write a smart or at least clever character, while being unable to come up with those solutions on their own.
To frame it more rigorously, the character can only be as intelligent as the source from which it was based upon.
in the cases where a writer has little life experience to use, that means the writer's intelligence is taken to task. in the case where the writer can burn other stories as fuel, then the most intelligent characters in those stories are the upper limit.
worth noting, this is an upper bound, and not always tight; the end result may be much lower or it may approach the bound, depending on writing skill, and this upper bound does not account for variance that naturally applies when people do things.
One more case worth noting is that, thanks to aforementioned variance, just by editing a work enough (given the editing itself is reliable), a person may be able to reach a good ways above the theoretical bound as well, to a point.
I was about to say what the guy above me said so just pretend I did
As jp said, writing is all about slight of hand. You don’t have to be smart, just clever enough to make people think that they are smart
THANK YOU! This is what I already wrote to Hello Future Me to talk about. How both smarter and limited characters are a fascinating challenge for any writer given that he is (probably) not them, so everything can go wrong (or lame) really fast. What clever tricks he/she/they will employ, given that someone smarter would presumably come up with a better solution to their problem.
Real talk, one of my favorite character archetypes is the accurate smart character. They are extremely intelligent in a specific field, but otherwise are just average, or even below average, compared to "normal" people. This extremely limited competence can lead to massive blindspots, which can create really neat character interaction. For example, someone who is extremely competent at all things warfare and military might collapse in despair or react irrationally when confronted with a nation that is overwhelmingly powerful, even though that nation is largely peaceful and friendly.
"WE NEED TO LAUNCH THE NUKES!!!"
"...they are literally asking us to run their nation for them because their king was murdered."
"WHERE'S THE LAUNCH CODES‽"
Or they might field options for unconventional warfare of the type less powerful nations use to fend off more powerful nations with a surprisinglt high rate of success.
They might also have gone over something like rhe official plans for fending off alien invasions with the assumption that they want the planet and population intact which isn't unlikely given that humans and life is the only thing earth has that you couldn't get anywhere else in much greater quantities and quality (if they don't want the planet alive you are already dead).
"Even if you get rejected [when you ask for information from experts], don't worry, you'll find one who won't shut up about it eventually"
This is so incredibly true! A huge number of experts are experts because they're obsessed with a topic and it's the only thing they want to talk about.
Before I even watch this: One of the worst things about smart characters is that the writer has to be kind of smart, too. Nothing is sillier and less believable than a moron's idea of a smart character. This goes for supposedly tricky or clever puzzles created by morons, too.
Either the smart thing that the smart character does really isn't that smart and can even actually be stupid, or the intelligence is written more like it's magic.
For the latter, I point to Batman as an example. His intelligence is written like it's magic more than anything.
Ahhh, yes. Every (vaguely) science fiction series or story needs the omni-diciplinary scientist, who's also an engineer, technician, physician and historian!
I like the “big words” example at 3:10 for a variety of reasons. For one, you mispronounced a lot of the words, which serves as an illustrative example of why one shouldn’t use big words as an author if they can use simpler, more direct phrasing. Also, leaving in the pronunciations as you did really humanizes you as a creator and tells viewers that it’s okay to make mistakes
I thought the mispronouncing was deliberate
Nah, using bigger words is a good thing in most cases... ever heard of subtext and lexical variety? Like, sure, the word "Slavegirl" is straight and to the point, but it carries an icky connotation that its synonyms like "Servitrix", "Handmaiden," "Maid," "Domestic," Etc., just don't carry. Same thing with words like "Vestibule", like I can write in my novel a "Vestibule Pillar" and it will make sense, but if I write something about a "Foyer Pillar" or "Threshold Pillar," it just ends up sounding unintuitive and brings the wrong imagery to mind..
I remember in highschool writing a story about a group of outcasts with vastly different personalities that somehow manage to become very good friends and the story focused on how they meet and grow closer.
Looking back it wasn't my most exciting work but I was very proud of my main character Lucas and his father George. George was a biochemist and medical engineer and seen by many of his colleagues as brilliant. His wife died of a rare terminal illness (one that I completely made up and can't remember the name of). This caused George to fall into a deep depression and develop an obsession with finding a cure. He spent countless days without sleep spending hours upon hours working at his company's lab rarely ever coming home. And when he was home, he was often delving through numerous medical journals for anything that might help him. He was a flawed man who was torn between his work and raising his family. He felt immense guilt over not being there for so many important moments in his son's life.
One of the best lines I've ever written was from Lucas. He said "I know what loss is, Dad. You aren't the only one who misses Mom. The only difference is, when she died, I lost *both* my parents."
The climax of the story is when the group of friends graduates and Lucas looks out and sees his father in the crowd smiling back at him with a tear in his eye. After the ceremony, the two embrace and share a tender moment where George tells Lucas that from now on his family will always come first.
I don't know why I felt the need to write all this. Maybe it was all the talk about scientists.
5:56 That's EXACTLY what Tony Stark does in Marvel's Midnight Suns, use big words and snark to cover for a lot of his insecurities. And nearly all his big plans to resolve the plot DON'T WORK, which aggravates a lot of the preexisting conditions he came into this story with.
My biggest pet peeve with most smart characters is that they're scientists most of the time. Of course, there are exceptions (Dr. Stone actually pulls this off really well by having characters be experts each in their own field, with Senku just being an expert in a specific section of them)
I actually like that in stargate atlantis, like mckay is one smart character, and brags, but then john is also very smart, and that is shown by how he like hows he is petty smart actually and just playing it down, but like that make them hhaving that fun dynamic that they get really close too and even have rivalries. I jut like that the are characters good at different things. like in the original oneil is far more smarter than letting on,or just wiser.
I mean yeah , why cant you have a smart like whatever. or artist, or athleth, or, hat else.
This is why I like Miles O'Brien on Star Trek, he's just this relatable down to earth guy that is also a brilliant engineer. But in general Star Trek has a wide range of characters who are smart in their own ways and expertise. Which I appreciate about it most of the time.
FYI, the words mentioned in 11:07 come from Gardner's 7 intelligences. It is actually proven to be wrong and is inauthentic, but the hypothesis was scientific enough given the tools he had to work with. Do not let that stop you from using it in your stories though, because some people may find it easier to use non-scientific things like MBTI to plan out the personalities of their characters and that's completely fine.
There's a fine art in using Technobabble that is still mostly nonsense (since it usually refers to technology that does not exist yet) but that is close enough to real tech to be relatable. "We need to reverse the polarity of the flux capacitor" is meaningless, but "We need to discharge the reactor's overflow capacitors" is still nondescript enough to be applicable to warp drives/fusion cores/whatever but actually means something understandable--we need to eject some excess energy from this device or it will fail/explode. Instantly tangible stakes presented in a way that does not take the audience out of the story
The worst kind of Technobabble is when you describe something that only means "We have to hit a few buttons on a console and the colored lights will change back to normal, immediately fixing the problem". No only does the audience have no idea what was wrong, it doesn't feel like any actual effort went into to fixing the problem, retroactively reducing the stakes. If you want to sell the danger or potential of a situation, it should be something that can't be fixed by reading the instruction manual of the device the operators are presumably already familiar with.
"reverse the polarity on the flux capacitor"
reverse means reverse
polarity implies the direction of the dipole moment vector (to explain dipole moment vector, imagine a bar magnet, now draw an arrow from its south pole to the north pole, this arrow is the dipole moment vector, yes, dipole moment vectors are just arrows that point from the negative towards the positive, from south towards north, you get the idea, and this arrow gives you the polarity)
flux: to explain flux, first we see what field lines are, if you remember the diagram of a bar magnet or recall that diagram of the magnetic field of the earth, you may remember those lines that represent the field, those are called field lines, for magnetic fields, they are magnetic field lines, for electric field, they are electric field lines, now imagine a plane surface (like a sheet of paper) and imagine those field lines going through this sheet of paper, flux is simply no. of field lines are going through this sheet per unit area, if a large number of field lines pass through the paper per unit area, the flux is larger, if less field lines pass throgh the paper per unit area, the flux is less
Capacitor: is basically a device that stores electric charge, any conducting body can make a capacitor, example, imagine a metallic sphere carrying a charge of 1 Coulomb, that is a capacitor, if you connect it to wires, a current will flow through the wires for a very short duration and the charge will be neutralised, its how things like the flash in a camera work, which need a current to flow through a device for a very short duration
the most common type of capacitor is a parallel plate capacitor (PPC) you can find it in a local electronics store
now we all know what these terms mean, i think we can all agree that there is no such thing as a flux capacitor and it makes no goddamn sense how reversing the polarity on it would help save the ship
Obviously the best example of a Smart Character is Sherlock and his many adaptations.
The Wrong way to write sherlock:
-Notice a group of seemingly disparate details
-Imply something based on those details
-Repeat
-Reinforce implication by painting a cohesive picture
-Conclude based on evidence
-Slightly inaccurate but mostly correct
The RIGHT way to write sherlock:
-Notice minor trivial detail
-Guess wildly
-Be Correct
Please do heists next. The Fast and the Furious movies are one of the best heist stories out there today, especially the 5th movie.
This was perfectly timed as i was gonna write a smart character for my dnd campaign.
On an unrelated note, do you think you can do a pirate episode in the next 24 hours?
"Jejune" sounds so much like one of my favorite English words "jejunum" that I kept mishearing it so that JP called himself "small intestine".
I thought of that as well, also though of Jeune in French which means yellow if I recall.
@Leggo MuhEggo
jeune → young
jaune (as in jaundice) → yellow
@@jhoughjr1 Uh...no. Jeune means young. *Jaune* means yellow.
It kept reminding me of Camp LeJeune
It just makes me want a French Dip sandwich with a side of jejune sauce.
You scared me at the beginning with all that GOOD advice about writing being a magic show, I was relieved when it turned out to just be a prank
It i kinda, that you can keep the attention where it should be while playing tricks to get it moving, maybe even reveal later. It doent have to e, but its at least an entertainment show.
Two scientists I really like are Doctor Light and Albert Wily. The two used to be friends until university, where Light's research on robots with free will was accepted by the university at Wily's expense. Light became a famous inventor thanks to the novelty of his research but ended up blaming himself for both Protoman and Wily going down a dark path. Meanwhile, Wily got so caught up on his idea being denied that he becomes more and more egotistical, to the point that he starts calling himself Doctor Wily despite never actually getting a doctorate. Wily also has an increasingly serious cash flow problem due to his constant attempts at making robots (to the point that he either makes them Junk Man level quality or just reprograms other robots and calls them his own) and giant bases.
By the time the X series rolls around, it's implied Light no longer wants to fix their friendship and all but confirmed that Wily/Serges/Isoc's ego has grown so large that losing to a robot that isn't Zero makes him absolutely livid.
Something similar happened to poor Doctor Hell in most Mazinger Z incarnations, because he inspired Dr Wily.
One of the reasons I hope X is a separate continuity
The fate of the old Megaman characters would be _way_ too grimdark, otherwise
@@carbodude5414 it's confirmed megaman Legends, x zx and classic are SADLY
on the same continuity
Remember, when writing a smart character you can work backwards. Instead of constructing a difficult situation and trying to figure out how a smart character can resolve it. You can come up with a smart solution and adjust the conflict or variables so that the solution makes sense. Thus, you don't actually need to have amazing analytical skills yourself. The character looks smart and the reader is none the wiser.
To be fair, "Reverse polarities on the flux capacitors" must make as much sense to starship engineers as "Reset to HEAD branch and perform a clean with -fdx" to software engineers.
He’s got these bad writing advice videos down to an exact science.
On the note of an expert in one field not necessarily being knowledgeable about others, I saw a Tom Scott video recently where, in one section, he was interviewing a physicist about the synthesis of radioactive compounds. She discussed the physics side in very technical detail, but the chemistry side she just described as "and then the chemists work their magic". She didn't know how the chemistry side worked, because that's not her field. I've experienced that personally, working with air purifiers. I could go into technical details about the chemistry side of things, but things like explaining bacterial kill mechanisms or how they measure bacterial kills? That's biology, my knowledge in that area's rather lacking. I wish that was something we saw more often in fiction: an expert being asked a question, and just answering "fuck if I know, that's not my field". Only example I can really think of is Bones in Star Trek, and his signature protest of "damn it Jim, I'm a doctor, not a _________"
Another thing I wish I saw more often, to reflect what real-life experts are like, is giving them _really_ strong opinions on really obscure topics. I've met people who are practically willing to throw hands over something only a few dozen people in the world are even aware of.
I was wondering where all the sarcasm went in the beginning of the video until JP was like "throw that all away" XD
An alternate solution to the research issue, is to make your own sort of science, if it is a fictional world, you just gotta explain it well, in a simple but concise way that can be adapted to any situation since science is something that’s all imposing, it’s in every situation
For me, I try a hybrid style, a mix between fictional science and real science, using just the more simpler aspects of real science in combination with my own interesting fictional science that the smart person can adapt in because I can give the smart person the same infinite intellect on the fictional science that I have since, as the creator, I’d know everything about it
A trope I’m not fond of: being smart/intelligent means you can’t be physically active/fit. Weak nerd, stupid jock trope.
I’ve worked in military nuclear power. You have some beefy technicians with 4-5 1,000 pg tomes around them as they wave their hands around before pushing a button. Making call outs that would only sound arcane to someone who has no idea what’s going on. Those same folks can nerd out harder than other folks can.
Even magic school stuff. During training, we studied all day, exercise in the afternoon, finish homework in the evening, get 1ish hours of off-time/relaxation.
Just saying: you can be diverse if your characters.
"I am so smart! I am so smart!
S-M-R-T! ...I mean S-M-A-R-T!"
Oh my gosh! Two videos of TWA in less then 5 days! That’s crazy! :o I’m so happy!
Smart automatically means super genius who is good at everything rather than having expertise in a certain subject matter right?
Wow. I came in expecting what’s on the box, and actually got good advice about the art of storytelling within the first few minutes!
That's how a lot of his videos work.
1:50 i think this is a very good point as a lot of cases in movies or shows, when the story is bad or unengaging, people usually will be more critical towards the small details such as logical inconsistencies or minor plot holes, which would add up and make the overall quality terrible
Smart characters can be tricky because, the actions they take actually do need to be smart, logical, thought out. Its the difference between writing a character who the readers look at and think... "really? thats your plan?" and "wow, that could work".
The bank heist in Die Hard with a Vengeance for example... wasn't just well thought out... It caught the FBI's eye... and they actually started asking questions of the writer "how he knew" about the subway tunnel, about the connections etc.
Sometime you do need to research actual situations or "crimes", when working out a "ingenious tactic."
Haven't watched yet but I'm predicting that "Talk about how smart your character is without ever actually showing it" will be in here
Edit: Yup...
A personal gripe of mine is when intelligence just becomes magic, with the genius character somehow knowing things that they couldn't possibly know.
To be fair, that’s on you. “Telling, not showing” is a pretty common theme when it comes to poor characterization *like* portraying intelligence
1:05 I was genuinely disturbed by how long the good advice went on. Worried I was having a stroke.
I'm currently writing a murder mystery where there's a team-up between two intelligent characters who have entirely different styles of deduction that cover for each other's weaknesses, with one of them being more concerned with observable reality and practical knowledge that lends itself well to picking up on smaller details, and the other being more or less out of touch with reality with a brain that generates endless theories for his investigative partner to pick through and determine which ones make the most sense. If not for this video, I never would've realized that these two should actually just both be omniscient geniuses who know everything immediately because they are just so smart. Like, dude, trust me. Just trust me. They're smart. You agree.
What happens when one of them gets sick and can't show up to work?
@@icecreamhero2375
Geniuses don't get sick. They outsmart the germs.
Actual answer: There is one case toward the end where the endless theory generator is... unavailable. He's physically present but personal reasons leave him unwilling to assist. For the other investigator, this is the toughest case of her life as she tries to basically brute force her mind into doing the same thing his does. It's almost dramatic irony; she began the story resisting his attempts to help, but gradually got so used to it that investigating without him feels like investigating with half her brain. She's also at a general low point in the story due to recent losses and personal grievances; she nearly gives up the case entirely.
*Pro-tip:* Never let your genius be wrong! Instead of trying to show their intelligence by how well they adapt to unexpected situations, write it so that they always knew every situation that comes up and how to solve it before hand. Not lazy at all!
One thing I love about TWA is that there is always real good advice hidden inside the rant!
Bro has probably watched death note at least 10 times and was able to figure out the answer of whether light or l was smarter
I mean, L figured out that Light was Kira pretty much at the beginning. He just lacked the hard, irrefutable evidence to make a good case.
L didn't lose to Light's superior intellect, he lost to shinigami power. As would any regular human.