The Three Types of Genius Characters

This is my first post here other than my introduction and I hope it's at least entertaining. I'm going to attempt to divide genius characters into three types and explain why one type of genius is better than the other two. Let's see if anyone else agrees with me or if it doesn't make sense or is common knowledge.

Type I Geniuses

The I in Type I is the letter i, not the number one. It stands for 'invisible'. These characters are not invisible themselves--their geniality is. You only know they are geniuses because the writer and the other characters say that they are all the time. Type I geniuses are almost always scientists. They scribble complicated formulas, build fantastic machines, and make important scientific discoveries. They've won Nobel Prizes.

The problem is that when they show off their intelligence, you can't understand it, because it's all about a theory or technology the writer doesn't explain because she probably doesn't know anything about it. When you can understand what the genius is up to, he doesn't seem especially clever. His intelligence is invisible; you can only see its results.

Type I geniuses aren't bad characters, but they won't exactly dazzle the readers with their high IQ. It's easy and more or less safe to create type I geniuses, but take care that what the character says about science is accurate. When it's not, the character loses credibility and irritates real scientists and science fans.

Type V Genius

V is the letter v, for 'visible'. Brilliant detectives in mystery novels belong to this category. You are given a fair chance to solve the case. You know everything that the detective knows, you have all the clues, but you can't solve the case. The detective can. You can see he's cleverer than you, hence the 'visible'. At this point, you'll either resent this fact, because you are envious, or you'll become a fan. Why do you think Sherlock Holmes has millions of fans? He's cold, quirky in absurd ways, and arrogant, but he solves cases. He owns you every time.

Does anyone disagree that this is the best type of genius? The problem is that it's hard to create a type V genius, because you have to come up with clever ideas yourself. If you don't, then you have a...

Type S Genius

S stands for 'stupid'. This character and the writer that created him think he's brilliant, but he is in fact stupid. Other characters admire him for his intelligence, but it's chapter 15 and he is still clueless. You, on the other hand, has solved the mystery on chapter 5. Nothing is more pathetic than a loser who thinks he's a winner, and while some characters are pathetic by design, sometimes writers are just lazy and don't realize their ideas aren't good enough to turn a character into a genius. They have some merit for attempting to create a difficult type V genius instead of resorting to an easy type I genius, but ultimately a type S genius is worse than a type I genius, because at least the latter is an actual genius, not an idiot. One way to decrease the risk of creating type S geniuses is to avoid advertising that your character is a genius. If he turns out stupid, at least you never promised he would be clever. The best way to avoid them is to work hard and come up with good ideas. This is easier said than done.

Birol said:

It seems to me that you're talking about the writing styles and how a certain type of character is often portrayed rather than actual character types.

Click to expand...

The difference is not in writing style, it's in substance. Type I geniuses are made out of thin air. They are said to be intelligent, but their intelligence is never shown. They work at the lab, build machines, but you can never understand what they do, because the writer never explains it. The writer doesn't understand what the character does. She only says "Let there be a genius."

Type V geniuses are solid in that you can follow their reasoning. You can appreaciate how clever they are, because you can understand what he does. It's 'show, not tell' for genius characters.

Type S geniuses are made of ordinary material poorly disguised as genius. They aren't geniuses, they are stupid.

Birol said:

The analysis is slanted based on personal preference

Click to expand...

I never said it was an impartial, purely descriptive analysis. It's a judgement of character quality that could only be slanted towards my preference rather than someone else's.

Birol said:

and is not backed by critical reasoning.

Click to expand...

What part of it needs more arguments? What exactly don't you agree with?

hammerklavier said:

Hercule Proirot, for example often comes up with the murderer based purely on relationships and motive with absolutely no proof. If the characters would just avoid incriminating themselves at the end of the novel, a good lawyer would get them off easily.

Click to expand...

Then in your opinion Hercule Poirot is a type S genius. He's stupid. He only succeeds because the other characters incriminate themselves. In my opinion, the characters incriminate themselves because Hercule Poirot knows how to put them under pressure, but it's possible that a lawyer could get them off if they kept their mouth shut. I'm not sure about it. If I remember correctly, Poirot's arguments weren't purely based on relationships and motive, although he certainly believes that psychological evidence is worth more than physical clues.

brokenfingers said:

How about the sly genius? The one who people stereotype as the typical cop or jock or housewife or slacker, but who is really very clever and insightful?

Click to expand...

I think the sly genius would be a type V genius, because we can actually see how clever this character is. The writer never says her character is a genius; she shows it. I like this technique a lot.

brokenfingers said:

Or the Fool. The one who people think is literally crazy and who they overlook as nothing but a kook, but in reality he’s a freakin’ genius!

Click to expand...

The fool might be a type I genius if he just comes out with brilliant insights out of nowhere or a type V genius if what he says is something the reader and the other characters failed to notice but it's certainly there.

NeuroFizz said:

Furthermore, how (and when) a mystery is solved in a work of fiction is more the skill (or lack thereof) of the writer, not the character.

Click to expand...

But this is exactly where I'm getting at. When the character's skills are shown rather than told, the writer has to have the same skills, otherwise it doesn't work. Sherlock Holmes could only solve cases because Arthur Conan Doyle was able to have good ideas himself. The writer who doesn't make an effort to have good ideas creates stupid "geniuses" or can only tell her character is a genius rather than show.

NeuroFizz said:

In my opinion, it would be kind of boring to write a genius into a story because he/she might have too easy a time for many of the intellectual challenges that are encountered in work of fiction

Click to expand...

Not if the problem is difficult to solve. The writer who wants to create a type V genius has to first create a problem that is difficult enough so that only a genius can solve it if he works hard.

NeuroFizz said:

Another possible snag--if you want your reader to become immersed in the story right along with the main character, you may have a hard time getting that closeness if the reader is told (or shown) up front that the main character is intellectually out of the reader's league. How is the reader supposed to identify with that character?

Click to expand...

This is a real problem, but the reader doesn't have to identify with every character in a novel. I could never identify with Sherlock Holmes, and I think this is one of the reasons most of his stories are told from Watson's point of view. Watson is much more sympathetic character, someone we can all identify with.

NeuroFizz said:

And, category I geniuses are all scientists? Not hardly.

Click to expand...

That's why I wrote 'almost always'. A gifted child is a common type I genius.

NeuroFizz said:

I know more than a fair share of scientists, and I can count only a handful that I would classify as being in the genius category.

Click to expand...

I'm a scientist myself and hardly a genius. But the statements 'type I geniuses are almost always scientists' and 'scientists are almost always type I geniuses' are very different and I only claimed the first one was true. There are many scientists who are not type I geniuses, there are few type I geniuses who aren't scientists.

NeuroFizz said:

But, I've know an auto mechanic and two computer programmers who would be right in there with them.

Click to expand...

Right. You just reminded me of Kaylee, the mechanic in the Firefly TV show. A perfect type I genius.

NeuroFizz said:

I have no problem with characters who have a high level of intelligence, but to be true to reality, that intelligence should come with intellectual and/or emotional flaws.

Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion all characters should have flaws.

jkcates said:

I tend to agree with some above postings about your limiting genius to more of a writing style than actual character types.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that adding substance to a character is a matter of style. It seems to me it's a matter of competence and being willing to work hard instead of taking the easy path.

I just saw your notes, so...

NeuroFizz said:

you have set up your classification so there is only one good choice--your choice for the best kind of genius. In that way, it's not a very useful classification scheme.

Click to expand...

To be fair, I wrote that my post was an attempt to show that one type of genius is better than the other two.

NeuroFizz said:

SECOND note added edit - one thing that I find hard to take in some forms of fiction (as a comparative statement) - the men are almost always muscled and handsome, the women almost always shapely and beautiful, the solvers of problems are frequently geniuses, and the settings are frequently are the haunts of the rich and famous, and move around the most exotic places on earth.

Click to expand...

This is an irritating trend, no doubt about it. Type I geniuses are just like muscled men and beautiful women. It takes no skill to create them. "Margaret was a genius. At the age of 9 she had taught herself advanced calculus and at the age of 12 she independently discovered the theory of relativity. She was also stunningly beautiful." I've just created a type I genius, as well as a Mary Sue. But creating type V geniuses takes real skill, as much skill as it takes to create any other great complex character.

NeuroFizz said:

The people I've met who I would consider to be in the true genius class did not self-identify themselves as such. I think authors should follow that suit when writing their characters.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. That's why I wrote that type S geniuses are pathetic. They identify themselves as geniuses, then fail to live up to the reader's expectations.

When the poem that supposedly made people bow down and worship the poet as the second coming of Shakespeare is written by the author and printed right there on the page for the reader to judge... well, good luck.

Click to expand...

Yes, it would be an epic failure that turns the character into a type S genius. On the other hand, if the author writes the poem and it's really good, turning the character into a type V genius, wouldn't it be amazing? It's also extremely risky in case you only think you can write better than Shakespeare, but you can't. If I wanted to create a genius at acting, painting, music, or poetry, she'd certainly be a type I genius, because I would never be able to show her ability any other way. But it's certainly possible to describe a great sculpture or a great painting.

JoNightshade said:

I agree with the others in that what you've classified is a writer's ability to write genius, not genius itself.

Click to expand...

All right, let my post be about a writer's ability to create a genius instead.

Yes, it's very risky. I wouldn't call attention to a character's IQ just to be safe.

hammerklavier said:

No, you said type-S was where the reader figured it out long before the character.

Click to expand...

That was just one of many ways a character can be stupid. It seems to me that a detective is not a genius if he can only arrest criminals who incriminate themselves.

ClaudiaGray said:

Then every detective who isn't a psychic fits your definition of "stupid." Whether it's giving a bad alibi, leaving physical evidence at the scene, displaying shifty eyes during questioning or leaving any proof whatsoever of his motive, pretty much every criminal in existence incriminates himself in some way or another.

Click to expand...

We were talking about characters who incriminate themselves at the end of the novel, not about characters who give bad alibi or leave physical evidence at the scene etc. hammerklavier criticized Hercule Poirot for having no evidence to prove his conclusions--he only succeeds because the culprits incriminate themselves when Poirot reveals the solution, that is, they confess everything, try to run away... But I love Poirot and the way he solves his cases.