The limits of a writer's imagination: Can Characters Surpass Their Creators in Intelligence?

[BlackKnightX]

Say, I write a scene where a genius character recites the decimal result of Pi indefinitely. I can't do that (actually, I can, but I have to think about it and carefully calculate in my head). But this guy is inhumanly intelligent and can just recite it the first time he learns about it. As an author, I can just simply look it up on Google and put it in.

Or, say, I write a scene where the character learns something that's supposed to be extremely hard for other characters really fast—maybe I also show how hard it is through other characters' perspectives—so then it's obvious to the readers that this character is a genius or highly gifted.

Another example is a knowledgeable type, the character who knows a lot of things and can answer any questions. This too I can just search any trivial details on the internet, and the guy would appear like he just pulls it out off the top of his head.

As you can see, these types of smart or genius characters are not as hard to write.

A type that is truly hard to write is the revolutionary inventive type. Basically, one who invents and comes up with truly original or clever ideas, ones that have never been done or seen before. This is not impossible to write, even if the author is not as smart as the character, but it requires more effort on planning and researching on the author's part.

 

[GlassRose]

If you really want to make a character smarter than the writer, then you either have to plan out their actions optimally far in advance and waste a lot of brain power that your character supposedly spends much less time thinking about.

Ofcourse you can. The author knows everything in the world, ans while they would be dumber than the character in the world they decide what the character knows. They also have tools to find a solution and can write a character having found tbe solution without those tools. I can Google a really hard question, find the answers and then the character just knows that answer.
Even without that you don't have to show every solution in detail. You can just say that a character is outstanding at maths, and do some examples of them using math were you are not actually showing what they are doing.

Being smart isn't just knowing things, it's how you know things, what you deduce without assistance and how you apply it. It's incredibly easy to have characters do things you could never do, because you don't have to do them to write them. Characters can make predictions you could never make cause you don't have to actually make the prediction, you decide ir anyways.

You just have to use tools and outside assistance that your character doesn't have. I can Google Pi to the whatever digit if I want to and then my character can recite that for memory. Or I can just say they can? Who wants to read 50000 numbers of pi in a novel anyways.

When it comes to wisdom and thoughtfulness, also yes. Because what a character comes up with in a moment, you can edit over months and months. I can't deliver a perfect monologue in a second, or come up with amazing metaphors or whatever ut I can over months.

Its all a matter of scale, time and access to assistance.

You can't just make the character act optimally, you also have to do set up to make sure that the character has the information needed to justify that optimal action, otherwise at best they'll look very, very, lucky (read: plot armor), or at worst, if their course of action required them to make assumptions with information they didn't have, and if the situation made it look like something else was the answer, they'll look like an idiot that the world bent over backwards to prove right, and it'll be super obvious that the author is cheating.

You can't just give them knowledge, you also have to justify the means by which they got it.

 

[ElijahRyne]

I've often heard the saying that a character can't be more intelligent than their creator, but is this really the case?
Reading some authors, I'm frequently amazed at how they've crafted certain characters, making me question this notion.
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.
Do you believe that a writer is limited by their own intelligence when creating characters, or can they indeed create a character who surpasses their own intellectual capabilities? Can a character be smarter than their author?

More intelligent yes, more knowledge no. Through careful planning you can create a character that is more wise/intelligent than you, especially if you work with someone else to help round the character out. You, if you can spare the time and effort, can create a thought process each and every action the character takes. Of course the character is only bound by the knowledge you have, but here in the Information Age that isn’t too hard to make up for.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Definitely Bruh.

 

[MatchaChocolate69]

Definitely Bruh.

It was a trap I set on purpose, and it worked. ?

 

[JHarp]

Same goes for personal/emotional affairs that happen in a story. If a writer doesn't have actual experience with certain emotions, situations, etc, then it will reflect in their writing.

"I cannot know what I don't know" applies here.

First of all, while I will agree with the general sentiment, that a writer will find it extremely difficult to portray emotions and experiences they have no experience with. It seems people are forgetting the entire acting industry, I highly doubt every actor playing Oedipus truly shares the character's delusions, nor do actors portraying murderers necessarily share their character's traits. Creativity and empathy are both concepts that exist in the real world, even if there is difficulty for some in being able to grasp how outwardly it might be perceived.

The key isn't about 'the character acting perfectly,' but rather 'the character acting as we imagine they would.'

There are many ways and reasons that a writer, if they consider a characters perspective for long enough, might come up with ideas they wouldn't naturally consider, that is the benefit of planning, writing and time, even if things look a bit fantastical, to the audience instead of sherlock being some plot device for solving everything, the writers can make things relevant and benefit him, so suddenly he seems quirky, rather than some all seeing god from a fantasy novel.

(I'm assuming spoilers will condense the wall of text, if it doesn't I'll edit this after posting)
Since people also don't seem to have a full grasp on what intelligence can entail, let me point out a few studies and references.

Spoiler

First I'd recommend researching a bit into spiral dynamics, while out of date there are some modern versions of that, along with developmental levels developed by loevinger and cook-grueter.

People when it comes to the degree of complexity, the 'level they can think at', varies throughout the day, people don't lose their most base instincts, they just have higher ones that can prioritise things, put them into perspective and analyse everything below. Intelligence as a quantifiable metric is why for years people thought animals not caring about their reflection in a mirror meant they couldn't recognise faces or were completely stupid. There are ways you can train yourself to think at higher levels and that in itself can contribute to general understanding.

In a sense you might get away with defining it as a sort of 'wisdom'. Overall however, it is extremely hard to quantify what reference point we plan to use for intelligence, if we go for conversational intelligence, I'd immediately fail because I, as someone autistic tend to ignore grice's maxims even though conversations are deemed to be cooperative, implied information isn't communicated information. Meanwhile some basic thought I deem logical, might be seen as others as genius for some reason which ends up feeling a bit weird. A similar conversation could be held for pain, that people always feel more pain than what we intend, because we can't frame of reference everything that makes up that person.

Either way, there are many types of intelligence, from cognitive, moral, emotional, rational. And people do well in different areas at different times depending on any number of influencing factors. Intelligence isn't some static number we can quantify and display, regardless of how much people like to rely on IQ as a generalization compared to the average population.

 

[Deleted member 84247]

Your character can absolutely be more intelligent than you. I am a dumbass, so by default, all of my characters are smarter.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Just not in first person.

 

[Shrimp_eater]

Depends on what you're calling smart here. If its just about quick-wittedness, memory, analytical ability, understanding of certain areas of study, etc; its perfectly possible as you can make up for those with planning, internet and maybe an element of vagueness.

If it involves one's perception of the world and reality (think a character that has a great understanding of human nature and the way the world works), then i think the author will be indeed limited by themselves. For example, a person who can only see the world in terms of black-and-white with little space for nuance would be unlikely to be able to write a character that is a great politician, at least convincingly.

I'd say there's also an element of how well the author understands the limits of his own intelligence. Take two writers who don't understand farming for example but are writing stories that involve that. One understands he knows nothing about farming so tries to cover the gaps with writing skills and research, the other mistakenly believes he knows enough about farming so they end up writing stuff that makes no sense.

 

[someawkwardflame]

You can't just make the character act optimally, you also have to do set up to make sure that the character has the information needed to justify that optimal action, otherwise at best they'll look very, very, lucky (read: plot armor), or at worst, if their course of action required them to make assumptions with information they didn't have, and if the situation made it look like something else was the answer, they'll look like an idiot that the world bent over backwards to prove right, and it'll be super obvious that the author is cheating.

Of course, but that isn't about writing a character smarter than the author is, that's just being a competent writer.

Your statement here is true for any characters you gave to establish that their actions make sense and they don't just ge thandwaved through. If they're dumb or smart. You can write a character being smarter than you well, or poorly - but it's certainly doable.

 

[GlassRose]

Of course, but that isn't about writing a character smarter than the author is, that's just being a competent writer.

Your statement here is true for any characters you gave to establish that their actions make sense and they don't just ge thandwaved through. If they're dumb or smart. You can write a character being smarter than you well, or poorly - but it's certainly doable.

Of course, you just didn't mention in your comment that part so I was under the impression that you hadn't recognized that. Because part of making a character smarter than the author is doing it convincingly, you can tell the audience that a character is smart, but they won't believe you if you don't show it well, so I sort of consider it an inherent necessity to mention.

 

[someawkwardflame]

Of course, you just didn't mention in your comment that part so I was under the impression that you hadn't recognized that. Because part of making a character smarter than the author is doing it convincingly, you can tell the audience that a character is smart, but they won't believe you if you don't show it well, so I sort of consider it an inherent necessity to mention.

Oh absolutely, my posy was already long and to me that isn't part of can you do it - more on how well its executed. As with anything you can do, doing it badly didn't mean you didn't do it. You just did a poor job. But yes, as with any quality or power of a character, bad buildup and setting of expectstio will make it come across poorly.

 

[HelloHound]

yes but an author has the advantage of seeking out information and other smarter people to give advice

 

[LilRora]

Frankly, while to some degree I understand the question, I also don't get why that's even a question. Unless you specify it more, the answer will obviously be yes, it's just that it's not necessary to show their thought process.

To actually prove someone's character is smarter than the author is arguably impossible, but so long as we don't go into rigorous definitions of intelligence or any related qualities and their detailed analysis, it's fairly easy to write such a character. I think a better question here is, can someone describe the thought process of a character smarter than them, and that's either impossible or extremely simple depending what it means to describe a thought process. It's not really possible to give a single definite answer there.

Though frankly, I'd personally say there's some baseline level of intelligence required to write about a character smarter than the author, but it's a very low bar. Just understanding they're actually smarter and doing a bit of research to make up for the difference should bridge the gap. The end result will of course depend on the writing skills, but that's another matter.

 

[J_Chemist]

Your character can absolutely be more intelligent than you. I am a dumbass, so by default, all of my characters are smarter.

Same.

First of all, while I will agree with the general sentiment, that a writer will find it extremely difficult to portray emotions and experiences they have no experience with. It seems people are forgetting the entire acting industry, I highly doubt every actor playing Oedipus truly shares the character's delusions, nor do actors portraying murderers necessarily share their character's traits. Creativity and empathy are both concepts that exist in the real world, even if there is difficulty for some in being able to grasp how outwardly it might be perceived.

The key isn't about 'the character acting perfectly,' but rather 'the character acting as we imagine they would.'

There are many ways and reasons that a writer, if they consider a characters perspective for long enough, might come up with ideas they wouldn't naturally consider, that is the benefit of planning, writing and time, even if things look a bit fantastical, to the audience instead of sherlock being some plot device for solving everything, the writers can make things relevant and benefit him, so suddenly he seems quirky, rather than some all seeing god from a fantasy novel.

(I'm assuming spoilers will condense the wall of text, if it doesn't I'll edit this after posting)
Since people also don't seem to have a full grasp on what intelligence can entail, let me point out a few studies and references.

Spoiler

First I'd recommend researching a bit into spiral dynamics, while out of date there are some modern versions of that, along with developmental levels developed by loevinger and cook-grueter.

People when it comes to the degree of complexity, the 'level they can think at', varies throughout the day, people don't lose their most base instincts, they just have higher ones that can prioritise things, put them into perspective and analyse everything below. Intelligence as a quantifiable metric is why for years people thought animals not caring about their reflection in a mirror meant they couldn't recognise faces or were completely stupid. There are ways you can train yourself to think at higher levels and that in itself can contribute to general understanding.

In a sense you might get away with defining it as a sort of 'wisdom'. Overall however, it is extremely hard to quantify what reference point we plan to use for intelligence, if we go for conversational intelligence, I'd immediately fail because I, as someone autistic tend to ignore grice's maxims even though conversations are deemed to be cooperative, implied information isn't communicated information. Meanwhile some basic thought I deem logical, might be seen as others as genius for some reason which ends up feeling a bit weird. A similar conversation could be held for pain, that people always feel more pain than what we intend, because we can't frame of reference everything that makes up that person.

Either way, there are many types of intelligence, from cognitive, moral, emotional, rational. And people do well in different areas at different times depending on any number of influencing factors. Intelligence isn't some static number we can quantify and display, regardless of how much people like to rely on IQ as a generalization compared to the average population.

 

[PancakesWitch]

Ya'll stupid

 

[RepresentingWrath]

It was a trap I set on purpose, and it worked. ?

Bruh.

 

[Deleted member 84247]

Ya'll stupid

I already said I was. I always see your name popping around here and that blue P. Didn't realize you wrote that Reborn as a Ghost novel.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

I already said I was. I always see your name popping around here and that blue P. Didn't realize you wrote that Reborn as a Ghost novel.

Big P. ? ? ?

 

[wimbledon]

My story has LitRPG elements, and I explicitly avoided INT as a stat. My reasoning?

The game devs can't fix stupid.