Genius in Refrigerators

[PatrickG]

Anybody else think that super-geniuses get the shaft in comics?

I once pondered that it was because of their McGuffin-like abilities but I've noticed that physical strength and mystical powered characters with McGuffin-like abilities get taken down less and/or recover faster.

Let's look at a few examples:

Atom, after being betrayed by his ex, shrinks down to subatomic size for "the foreseeable future".

John Henry Irons, after being killed and resurrected, retires and needs physical therapy to walk with the implication that he's suffered brain damage from just seconds of being clinically dead.

Reed Richards has lost his intelligence at least three times and was dead for YEARS.

Emil Hamilton went crazy.

Barry Allen died.

Superman lost his super-intellect after Crisis.

When discussing Batman in the context of his genius, there is possibly no more reviled character online. Everyone wants him to "get what's coming to him" or to be shown up by other heroes.

Niles Caulder went insane.

Emil Hamilton went insane.

Brainiac 5 went insane, got better, lost his one and only major girlfriend in Crisis. Then, when Andromeda was introduced as her replacement, she married his best friend.

Feminist theory often points out how Eve ends up making women a subtextual scapegoat in the Judeo-Christian world but then, also, is knowledge. Likewise, in most cultures, knowledge tends to be associated with the forbidden. Individual excellence poses a threat to the well-being of the community.

I decided to search for relevant quotes about genius, intelligence and knowledge online. Here's a sampling of what I got:


Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance. ~Confucius

What we want is to see the child in pursuit of knowledge, and not knowledge in pursuit of the child. ~George Bernard Shaw

One part of knowledge consists in being ignorant of such things as are not worthy to be known. ~Crates

All our knowledge merely helps us to die a more painful death than animals that know nothing. ~Maurice Maeterlinck

There is nobody so irritating as somebody with less intelligence and more sense than we have. ~Don Herold

Character is higher than intellect. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Men of genius are meteors destined to burn themselves out in lighting up their age. ~Napoleon Bonaparte, Discours de Lyon, 1771

I have known no man of genius who had not to pay, in some affliction or defect, either physical or spiritual, for what the gods had given him. ~Max Beerbohm, Zuleika Dobson, 1911

Every man of genius is considerably helped by being dead. ~Robert S. Lynd

There is no great genius without some touch of madness. ~Lucius Annaeus Seneca, "On Tranquillity of the Mind," Moral Essays

No man who worships education has got the best out of education.... Without a gentle contempt for education no man's education is complete. ~G.K. Chesterton

I'm a bit sick of genius being equated with deviance, something subversive, something dangerous, something to be shunned.

I'm not trying to take the label for myself but I'm heartily tired of those to whom the label IS attached being marginalized.

[Gail Simone]

I absoLUTEly think that people are more comfortable with dumber characters. Even characters who are supposed to be really smart seem to hit their highest popularity when that aspect is downplayed.

The egghead makes a perfect target, evidently. Which drives me nuts and is a huge theme in Killer Princesses.

Gail

[kcarroll]

I agree. it is probably very difficult to write a super-genius. Very often, the writer must rely on making everyone else a little slower.

The number of geniuses that go insane is pretty high. Think about the number of geniuses that are insane or evil from inception: Sivana, Luthor, Doom

The intellectual elite does get a raw deal in fiction. there ought to be a few that are at least slightly better adjusted.

do you think it is the inability to write such a smart person that leads to these drastic character developments?

[Static-Pulse]

I call it "Trekification" of media. Watch TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT; then look at any engineer, hacker, or technofetishist in the world. Trek takes nerds and beats the geek out them.

[Static-Pulse]

Also, dude...

* Blue Beetle was killed.

* Stargirl -- who has an I.Q. of 170! (http://profnano.org/hackers/db/courtney_iq.jpg) -- is constantly written like an idiot.

* Modem, if I recall correctly, was the tech-geek for the latest Suicide Squad, and he was killed.

* Wasn't Trip the engineer -- and I use that term loosely -- on Enterprise killed?

[Puffy Treat]

I absoLUTEly think that people are more comfortable with dumber characters. Even characters who are supposed to be really smart seem to hit their highest popularity when that aspect is downplayed.

The egghead makes a perfect target, evidently. Which drives me nuts and is a huge theme in Killer Princesses.

Gail


Meanwhile, dumb people are treated with nothing but the highest of respect *cough cough* HOMER SIMPSON *cough*.

Everyone can find evidence that everyone else is out to get them, if they look for it. And less intelligent people are treated with just as much didain and abuse in entertainment. If you think otherwise, then you're looking only for what you want to see.

[PatrickG]

Unless you're Spock.

But even then, until Generations, Spock was the only one to die.

Funny thing is, I get it in a story when a villain targets a genius because s/he's a genius. That's sound strategy.

But from the list of things that happen to super-geniuses in comics, it isn't strategy that winds up being the downfall of these types. It isn't a concerted effort by the antagonist(s) to destabilize things by going after the lynchpin.

It's usually dumb luck, which translates to more or less deus ex-type devices that usually come out of nowhere at the writer(s) and/or editor(s) behest to destabilize or demonize these guys.

I'm really puzzled too because the 40s and 60s both had scientific booms that influenced popular culture. Both were also the most fertile breeding grounds for super-heroes.

I don't think you can appeal to the lowest (or even the median) common denominator and expect super-heroes to flourish.

They're at their best when science and knowledge in general are glorified, not feared.

And it really, really doesn't take as much as people might think for a writer to write a character who is smarter than they are, at least intellectually. All it takes is cooperating with a few people who are experts at what they do and/or browsing the internet and/or encyclopedias for research. Y'Know, hit a library. Watch Discovery channel.

Anybody with an average to above average grasp of the language (which most writers have) can write a character who seems far more intelligent than they are -- and all it takes is half an hour on Google, if that.

Now, to write a character that's deeper or more profound than the author, THAT'S rare. I think even the greats only manage that a couple of times.

But it seems like laziness to suggest that writing smart characters is hard. That may account for some of the bias but I think a lot of it is that kindof pro-wrestling mentality where everybody gets their kicks watching the blue collar champion, who isn't quite as bright as they are, beat up the elitist oppressor who uses words they don't understand.

Maybe.

Curious to hear people's thoughts on this.

[Static-Pulse]

Unless you're Spock.Dude. I specifically left TOS out of that list because of one Montgomery "Scotty" Scott. Dude's a legend. Sotty's the original N-to-the-E-to-the-R-to-the-D, Genius! He's m'boy, dog!

I don't think you can appeal to the lowest (or even the median) common denominator and expect super-heroes to flourish.Sure you can. Infinite Crisis is selling like hot cakes.

They're at their best when science and knowledge in general are glorified, not feared.I think they are. You think they are. The eighty-thousand people who bought GL: Rebirth and have snubbed Livewires, Majestic, and Enginehead don't. Seriously, comics that appeal to the nerds and technofetishists don't appeal the masses.

[PatrickG]

I don't know.

Call it anecdotal evidence but the sci-fi club at my school has gotten... well.. dumber since I started as a freshman. They used to be into Assimov, Bradbury, Adams...

... And now they're hung up on Inuyasha.

I'm increasingly amazed at how many self-proclaimed geeks, hackers and misfits don't know Nietzsche from John Locke. They complain that Hamlet's just mean and pride themselves on Einstein's poor test-taking skills.

All geeks used to be nerds... But being a geek has become so popular that many non-nerds hopped on the wagon.

Look at it this way:

Comic writers in the 40s were pulp enthusiasts. Comic writers in the 60s were associated with sci-fi publishing.

But then the 70s, 80s and 90s hit and you have a ton of people writing super-heroes who don't even like sci-fi.

I admit I tend more towards Bradbury than Assimov, more towards Serling than Star Trek. I don't have as much time to read as I'd like, either.

But geez!

Genetically, I know I'm pretty much predestined for baldness someday. I already wear glasses or contacts. I can be a geek.

But I want to make up for it by being scholarly, intellectual, etc.

I'm very intimidated, I must admit, by the level of technical knowledge which many comics fans and computer enthusiasts have that comes without a depth of appreciation for the form.

Somebody shouldn't be a hacker if they can't discuss the philosophy of anarchy or know that outputting "hello world" is traditionally the first thing a person learns to program in a new programming language. Somebody shouldn't be a raver if they can't talk about urban degradation, homogenization, the primal need to break loose. And I have no clue how someone gets into comics with the attitude that dogs in capes are silly but that outerspace rape scenes are somehow more realistic.

It drives me crazy when other students talk about their high schools putting on student-written plays that lampoon Shakespeare.

Me: "Well, there are things about Shakespeare that you can poke fun at but at 16, can you say you understood Shakespeare?"

Them: "Well, I don't think you have to understand something to make fun of it."

Me: "But then you look like an idiot to anyone who does understand it. *sigh* Give me an example of what you did."

Them: "Well, we played up all the words that ended in 'ed'. Like 'return-ed'."

Me: "You realize that there are reasons why certain words get accented, right? That he uses verse. And that there are reasons why he used verse."

Them: "Well, he talked funny. I mean, you have to admit that it's funny the way people in Shakespeare talk."

Me: "But they do that for specific reasons at specific times. It has to do with the verse. And the verse, along with the word imagery, basically idiot-proofed his plays in an age without the modern notion of the stage director."

Them: "Well, it sounds funny. Shakespeare's overrated anyway."

Me: "Well, I agree that he gets put on a pedastool too much. There's a lot of dirty humor in his plays, even the tragedies. I think we do tend to gloss over that to make it 'respectable'. I think, in some ways, Shakespeare was the equivilent of a Fox sitcom writer... He just happened to be one of the greatest writers in the English language in doing it."

Them: "I saw the Titus movie. There's a lot of blood. It's pretty awesome. I think it's the best thing he wrote."

Me: "There is no God."

I get the feeling sometimes that robots are slowly replacing people.

It seems that it used to be that if you asked, say, a forty year-old why they liked, say, vanilla ice cream, they'd respond, "Well, it's got a certain sweetness to it without anything that overwhelms the flavor. It used to be a big deal growing up when we got ice cream. I have good memories of my grandmother making vanilla ice cream from scratch."

And you ask the average forty year-old today, you're gonna get an answer like, "I don't know. You think too much." OR "I just do." OR "I'm allergic to chocolate."

It all boils down to, "Because I'm programmed this way."

And I think that ties very much with treatment of genius in literature. There's a desire to treat characterization in a "just because" manner, to treat preference of story in a "just because" manner, to sacrifice depth and sweetness and soul for something quick and unrevealing.

You can't do Hamlet without the poetic monologues. You can't do genius-level super-heroes without the super-hero poetry that makes readers' heads explode.

And if comic books are succeeding that aren't rooted in an orgasmic love of possibility, pretend, imagination and knowledge then it's because people are uncomfortable forging an emotional bond with the characters and their world. They want a formal series of events to play out according to a somewhat predictable form and anything that threatens to short circuit their way of thinking is threatening.

I am concerned that super-heroes which once offered people a chance to escape outward, above and beyond are now a different kind of escapist literature all together that allows them to hide within a subculture. It embraces rather than uplifts. It engages rather than provokes.

Not true of everything, mind you... But have you ever noticed that when a character disappears for a few issues and shows up with a new costume or acting in a way that's seemingly out of character, readers today cry foul whereas readers twenty years ago would probably have reacted by eagerly awaiting the next issue? The focus may be shifting from "What next?" to "Why me?"

[Gail Simone]

Also, dude...

* Blue Beetle was killed.

* Stargirl -- who has an I.Q. of 170! (http://profnano.org/hackers/db/courtney_iq.jpg) -- is constantly written like an idiot.

* Modem, if I recall correctly, was the tech-geek for the latest Suicide Squad, and he was killed.

* Wasn't Trip the engineer -- and I use that term loosely -- on Enterprise killed?

That's very interesting, Static...somehow, even though I was a fan of the original series, I had no memory of Stargirl being that smart. Huh.

Well, if I ever get a chance to write her, that will definitely be in there. Thanks!

Gail

[Gail Simone]

Meanwhile, dumb people are treated with nothing but the highest of respect *cough cough* HOMER SIMPSON *cough*.

Everyone can find evidence that everyone else is out to get them, if they look for it. And less intelligent people are treated with just as much didain and abuse in entertainment. If you think otherwise, then you're looking only for what you want to see.


No, Puffy. 'Respect' isn't actually the issue here and your example is proof. Is there a more popular recent cultural icon than Homer? And you called it, the guy's as dumb as a post.

Gail

[PatrickG]

I was a fan of the original series too, BTW.

Wasn't that the issue where she cheated on an IQ test and the consequence was that she got singled out by the creepy prinicipal for an experiment?

I need to dig those out.

Maybe it was that she didn't cheat and still scored high and that was part of the moral.

Regardless, I always felt like Courtney was a cool character that wouldn't take flack from anybody and I'd like to see her more outside of an environment where she's basically surrounded by the great.

I mean the JSA turned J.J. Thunder from being a swearing punk into a respectable kid.

They have that kind of effect on people.

I really liked Courtney's never-say-die attitude.

Looks like Supergirl has a similar attitude so I'm looking forward to her book and her interaction with Stargirl there.

[Gail Simone]

I dig Stargirl.

One of the first things I pitched at DC was a mini called 'Kicks, feature Wonder Girl, Stargirl and Mary Marvel. The IDEA was great, but my pitch sucked on ice (it was, to be frank, amateurish), and the thing went nowhere. But I love the idea of three teen girls who would actually BE teen girls.

Gail

[Static-Pulse]

That's very interesting, Static...somehow, even though I was a fan of the original series, I had no memory of Stargirl being that smart. Huh.Well, double check with Geoff if you ever do. That's from an issue where Courtney cheated on an intelligence test that the villains at her Blue Valley school were giving. However, since the print out has "Beverly Hills High" on the header and a picture of Courtney in front of a palm tree, I've always told myself that the B.V.H.S. test was used to flag bright kids, and then the principal (an evil robot) would get their transcripts to confirm it.

I asked on the GJ.com forums once if that IQ was right or not, but never got an answer -- aside from a few fucktards who thought it'd be cool if there was a story arc with Courtney using drugs.

I really loathe JSA fans sometimes...

[kcarroll]

I can't get on board with the equation of genius = nerd/technofetishist.

Nero Wolfe is a genius and a luddite.

On the subject of lazy writing, I'm merely saying that a writer of average or even higher than average intelligence is going to struggle to write a super-genius in a serial format. Sooner or later, it must become difficult to write above your intelligence level. Not just use longer words, or understand the scientific principles at work, but really understand how a genius would react to a given situation. At that point, what do you do with the genius?

Give him a handicap. Insanity, addiction, obsession, or a turn at villainy. I don't think there is a prejudice against the genius. I think very often the genius is used as a deus ex machina device, as with Batman in the Morrison JLA, and limiting their abilities allows the writer to provide a conflict without a simple resolution.

[Static-Pulse]

I'm increasingly amazed at how many self-proclaimed geeks, hackers and misfits don't know Nietzsche from John Locke. They complain that Hamlet's just mean and pride themselves on Einstein's poor test-taking skills.Nietzsche was the one with spikes growing out of his arms, right?

[Spackling Compound]

Good point, Patrick! Another casualty...smart Hulk!

http://crazyeli.com/images/hulk393.jpg


I know there are glitches in writing but I always think its sort of odd that in some comics, Wolverine can fly a spaceship, work on programs for the danger room and understand foreign languages and in others he's a simple talking, luddite with a mad on for injustice.

[PatrickG]

No, Puffy. 'Respect' isn't actually the issue here and your example is proof. Is there a more popular recent cultural icon than Homer? And you called it, the guy's as dumb as a post.

Gail

I get his point, Gail, that Homer is made fun of but I see a lot of people who identify with Homer.

And the Simpsons (along with Family Guy) used a formula for comedy that presents us with stupid people given freedom from consequences.

Peter Griffin's family can get away with killing Mel Gibson and William Shatner. Death is a regular houseguest. Homer Simpson can get away with massive property damage, numerous criminals acts, he's made it through the Rapture (twice, I think) and what makes it funny, what allows the joke to go so far is that Homer (and Peter) can die, get into a fistfight with the president, impersonate celebrities, make deals with the mob and basically do ANYTHING... And through a combination of conceits, he's fine.

Which is a GREAT comedy formula. It builds on ignorant bliss, the blind-deaf-mute guy that's safe on a high rise construction site and a thousand old gags that all revolve around the idea that an unaware person gets by without consequences. What you don't see won't hurt you. If you close your eyes, you're invisible. It's something we all generally experience at a young age and move beyond so it allows for humor that we can connect with and yet we can feel a little bit above as well.

Whereas there seems to be a less observed counter-principle in tragedy/dark comedy that the guy who is too aware will be destroyed by things that aren't even real. Descartes says, "I didn't think..." and disappears. A poet discusses the chasm upon which our modern society is built and gets swallowed up by a mysterious hole in the ground.

[PatrickG]

Good point, Patrick! Another casualty...smart Hulk!

http://crazyeli.com/images/hulk393.jpg


I know there are glitches in writing but I always think its sort of odd that in some comics, Wolverine can fly a spaceship, work on programs for the danger room and understand foreign languages and in others he's a simple talking, luddite with a mad on for injustice.

Yeah, well, I bet it's 'cause Wolverine's lived long enough that he knows what'll happen to him if he sounds too smart. He'll get put in his place fast. ;)

Actually, I think Walt Simonson had a nifty subplot when he did FANTASTIC FOUR where he started challenging how smart Ben Grimm really was. He showed that Ben had more than a casual working knowledge of Reed's equipment and he did a little bit of probing into why exactly Ben Grimm might be a genius in his own right but prefer to act like a tough, streetsmart guy.

All this, years before Good Will Hunting. :)

[Typo Lad]

I absoLUTEly think that people are more comfortable with dumber characters. Even characters who are supposed to be really smart seem to hit their highest popularity when that aspect is downplayed.l

Heck, it's not new. Look at "The Odyssey". Odysseus comes up with the idea of the Trojan Horse and is punished by the gods!

[PatrickG]

Oedipus solves the Riddle of the Sphinx.

I'm sure whoever started the Tower of Babel was a guy with a vision.

But that brings up an interesting point.

Historically, we've had a long line of tragic figures who offended the gods by being smarter or trying to be smarter than the gods.

I never thought about this before but do you suppose audiences get a vicarious thrill for this kind of thing?

Whenever a character is portrayed as thinking s/he's smarter than the gods, better than the god, etc. s/he gets struck down.

But maybe the real reason, dramatically, they get struck down is for proclaiming, in effect, that they're better than the audience.

Hamlet's a notable exception. It was his father, mother and uncle who started the whole mess but I think, for a variety of reasons, his father stands out most.

But Hamlet's crimes are a result of him listening to "higher powers", not because he ignores them.

And instead of the reaction among the audience being, "Stupid would-be genius, he challenged fate and was crushed by it" he evokes a different feeling.

I mean, yeah, many people cite his flaw as being inaction or excess emotion...

But Shakespeare succeeded in creating greater sympathy for Hamlet than any prior author to work with the character, all the while deapening Hamlet's intellect.

And to the point where educated old scholars, the kind who normally just dissect literature and poetry impassively, feel a kind of love and remorse for the death of this fictional character no matter how many times they read it or see ir performed.

Bit of a tagent but there's one gem I LOVE from Paul Levitz that he assigned to Brainiac 5:

"I could go back to Colu. My people spend centuries studying theories. Maybe I should too. I couldn't hurt anyone that way... no chance of building a Computo, an Omega. I've brought so much destruction into this world, trying to do good. Perhaps the answer is not to go to Colu, but simply away. Explore the ultimate question: death. I couldn't hurt anyone then... and I might not suffer from the memory of Kara. Kara. My Supergirl. I could take the Time Bubble--try to change history and save her--if the resulting paradox didn't destroy us both. As it has everyone else who ever tried and didn't return. Or, I suppose, I could go back inside. Coward."

You know what that is? It's an almost perfect emotional beat reconstruction of the "To be or not to be" soliloquy. I LOVE it. I've had the chance to meet the man a couple of times but I've NEVER remembered to ask him if, possibly, this was intentional.

Because this quote made Brainiac 5 one of my favorite characters.

It's just one page of him pacing under the stars and thinking but it has better characterization than is found in the complete works of some supposedly characterization-centric writers.

[Typo Lad]

Heck, the whole concept of Hubris biols down to:

"Stay ignorant and do what we tell you because no-one likes a smartass."

[TCJohnson]

One of my favorite shows when I was growing up was Doctor Who. One of the reasons why I loved it so much is that the main character was very smart and clever and actually used it. He would outwit his opponents instead of just having a bigger gun.


And, surprising, the show is doing extremely well in England right now.

[Typo Lad]

Thank you for touching on my biggest problem with the "Smart Hulk".

He's the most physically powerful being on Earth, now with one of the greatest brains on Earth... and he runs around with guns shooting stuff!

[PatrickG]

Thank you for touching on my biggest problem with the "Smart Hulk".

He's the most physically powerful being on Earth, now with one of the greatest brains on Earth... and he runs around with guns shooting stuff!
He was smart enough to know what would sell more comics, probably. ;)

[Typo Lad]

He was smart enough to know what would sell more comics, probably. ;)

Smart guy!

Oh no, now I've done it...

[Spackling Compound]

I think that the "GiR" idea is a pretty interesting one, P.

I am reminded of the short story, "Flowers for Algernon" which was later the movie "Charly". The character develops into a genius and then regresses back into a childlike retardation.

I think Web of Spiderman did a play on it when the Rhino was given intelligence only to lose it later.

That sort of is upsetting to me, to see things dumb down. Both had the same effect. And, I like Smart Hulk! I actually liked the original Hulk who talked in a "tough guy" voice.

When it comes to my tastes, I personally like heroes who outsmart and outwit others. I also enjoy a good plot twist. I wasn't a Cable fan until Casey got a hold of him. I dropped him later when he became Leifeld's Cable again.

I wonder if the "dumbing down" of heroes or the "killing of geniuses" gives the open door for any writer to come in and make them do what they want.

For instance, I am not that bright in science or math. I could never write a sci-fi based hero or one who deals with science. However, I think, given the time, I could write Logan or Werewolf by Night or The Thing or even...I don't know...umm...Robin(with continuity issues out of the way).

Like I said, re-reading old Claremont X-Men, Logan was basically understanding Shi'ar technology and could manipulate computers. I can't see him doing that as easilly now.

Maybe stupid characters are easier to write and it doesn't take a genius...just in case you can't find one to write.

[Cap'n Panda]

Maybe part of this is related to credibility and suspension of disbelief.

If the evil genius invents, say, a flying car, and keeps it for himself, fits it with a laser gun and robs a bank, that’s in-character, and (in that context, at least) believable.

But when the good-guy genius invents a flying car, and the rest of the world around him stays the same, and nobody else gets a flying car, well, it seems a little jack-ass-y. It’s hard to reconcile the idea d of a super-genius who keeps all the best stuff.

Isn't’ that one of the ideas behind the demonization of that alternate version of the FF, The Four, over in Planetary? They’ve got all this mind-blowing tech, and they’re keeping it out of the world at large’s hands.

[MacQuarrie]

I think we're talking about a couple of different things here.

The notion that genius is distrusted and punished is quite valid. I'm reasonably bright, and I have had the experience of having a grown woman look me right in the face and say "Ew, you know stuff. What do you want to know stuff for? You're weird." I have a couple of brothers who celebrate their ignorance and have no problem at all with the fact that the strength of their opinion is generally in inverse proportion to their knowledge of the subject. There's a reason "Jackass" is a popular show.

On the other hand, the notion of genius offending the gods is a whole 'nother animal. History is littered with examples of people who didn't know as much as they thought they did. We're spending millions of dollars a year repairing damage done to the environment by great inventions. Here in So Cal, one of the major causes of our constant drought conditions is the fact that the Army Corps of Engineers decided back in the post-war years that turning all our rivers and creeks into concrete-lined flood-control channels was a smart move. Instead it dumps 99% of our rainfall directly into the ocean and prevents replenishment of the water table.

Intelligence is at its best when coupled with a little humility. We seldom know as much as we think we do. Being aware of what we don't know, and of the Law of Unintended Consequences, we should be a little careful in how far we reach. But keep reaching.

But, getting back to the topic at hand, I think one of the mitigating factors in literature is that it's hard to write somebody who's a lot smarter than the author, so I think a lot of writers try to eliminate the problem. In order to write one of Batman's mysteries, you have to be smart enough to figure it out in the first place.

[Static-Pulse]

It’s hard to reconcile the idea d of a super-genius who keeps all the best stuff.And yet, we do it all the time.

Go back and read Starman #72, the issue where Ted Knight dies. What does he say to Jack? He says he patented all his Cosmic Rod technology, which would make Jack even richer. James Robinson wrote it better than that, but the point is, Ted Knight's technology is on file in the U.S.T.P.O. If some bright-eyed inventor comes along and wants to build a cosmic battery and his designs are too similar to Ted Knight, some lawyer on retainer for the Knight Foundation or the JSA, can cause this guy all kinds of harm.

Ellis isn't demonizing the Fantastic Four in Planetry, he's stating the obvious. I can't believe we're having this conversation again. Over in the Black Panther book, T'Chala and Wakanda are sitting on the cure for cancer. They don't share because they're worried the Western world would weaponize it.

We reconcile it all the time.

[Spackling Compound]

But, getting back to the topic at hand, I think one of the mitigating factors in literature is that it's hard to write somebody who's a lot smarter than the author, so I think a lot of writers try to eliminate the problem. In order to write one of Batman's mysteries, you have to be smart enough to figure it out in the first place.

Exactly!
In the same way, it's sometimes perhaps hard for a sensitive, brilliant person to write an action hero. "The Hulk" the movie, comes to mind.

[Adam Crocker]

Heck, it's not new. Look at "The Odyssey". Odysseus comes up with the idea of the Trojan Horse and is punished by the gods!

Well specifically by the sea god Poseidon who was on Troy's side (that and blinding his cyclops son, Polyphemus), but I never thought about it that way before.

[stealthwise]

I am reminded of the short story, "Flowers for Algernon" which was later the movie "Charly". The character develops into a genius and then regresses back into a childlike retardation.

I think Web of Spiderman did a play on it when the Rhino was given intelligence only to lose it later.


Yep, it was in Tangled Web and was called "Flowers for Rhino", only in the story, he becomes so smart that he can't find anything in life to enjoy, so causes himself to become stupid again through his own experimentation.

[stealthwise]

Hey Patrick, in your initial post you talked about "McGuffin" like qualities. What were you referring to, as I only recognize the term from Hitchcock's filmmaking.

[Adam Crocker]

MacGuffin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin)

'In regard to the tune, we have a name in the studio, and we call it the 'MacGuffin'. It is the mechanical element that usually crops up in any story. In crook stories it is always the necklace and in spy stories it is always the papers.'
-- Alfred Hitchcock, 1939 lecture at Columbia University

[steeler80]

This is a very interesting topic, Patrick. There does seem to be a strong trend in literature that those that grow too smart are brought down. In the Bible for instance, it is the knowledge of good and evil brought on by their eating of the fruit that causes Adam and Eve to be removed from the Garden. The legend of Faust is another instance where too much knowledge or too zealous a quest for knowledge leads to tragedy.

Not to mention the scientists who have tried to push the bounds of what is known to horrible consequences, from Frankenstein to Seth Brundle of The Fly. There seems to be an undercurrent throughout our storytelling that it is unnatural to push past a certain state of knowledge and those that cross this boundary do at their own peril.

[matterconsumer]

The public American tradition has not been to celebrate genius or above average intelligence...

As far as "mainstream" comics go it's helpful for the audience to understand the story. So whether the writer is able to plot beyond the average or not the audience is the common denominator...

But bright people are bright people through no effort of their own other than an attraction to brightness which only exacerbates a state that those who do not understand will never understand...

[Dry Observer]

I absoLUTEly think that people are more comfortable with dumber characters. Even characters who are supposed to be really smart seem to hit their highest popularity when that aspect is downplayed.

The egghead makes a perfect target, evidently. Which drives me nuts and is a huge theme in Killer Princesses.

Gail

That must be a challenge for you, Gail, because the intelligence and competence exhibited by your characters is one of the things I love about Birds of Prey. You don't make everyone a genius, but all of your characters (at least the ones with any real speaking role) use what they've got as effectively as they can. As opposed to some stories, where the genius is made to look good by keeping everyone around him/her stupid, or by explaining some plot McGuffin strategem at the end, after having spent the entire story looking rather dense.

So anyway... does that worry you, when you're writing Barbara as really, really smart? Because she's surrounded by some really bright regulars (Savant, Dinah, Helena, even Creote) and guest stars and still doesn't seem to be holding back by comparison. I can tell that you're not writing her to be perfect or invincible, but you also don't give her overt psychological handicaps like Savant.

So... challenging? Refreshing? Gut-wrenching? Annoying? What? =)

Ralph

[Blinky the Tree Frog]

Okay, I'm finding this particular thread very interesting, and I certainly agree with many of the arguments made. However, I'm actually posting because I am amused that I happened to be waiting for this thread to load just as I came across this in another window:

http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20050309.html

How...appropriate.

[Dry Observer]

Anybody else think that super-geniuses get the shaft in comics?

I once pondered that it was because of their McGuffin-like abilities but I've noticed that physical strength and mystical powered characters with McGuffin-like abilities get taken down less and/or recover faster.

I think there's a number of reasons for this, and often the consequences you're seeing are the result of multiple factors working together...

1. The superintelligent are hard to write.
2. The superintelligent arouse envy.
3. The superintelligent are hard and/or tiresome to understand.
4. The superintelligent just aren't what arouse the passions of a lot of your fellow readers.
5. The superintelligent often feel like a deus ex machina plot device, especially if you don't understand the reasoning behind their critical invention, tactic, deduction, etc. Which can make a story feel unsatisfying.
6. The superintelligent arouse powerful feelings of inadequacy, fear and hostility, not just plain old envy.

These are reasons why portraying a popular superbright character can be challenging. But perhaps what we should be asking is: Why is it that some supersmart characters are popular? Why is it that a scarce handful of ultra-brilliant heroes have a strong fanbase, while most others are set aside and at best ignored?

Probably the most successful heroic supersmarts I can think of are Batman, Robin, Oracle, Mr. Fantastic, Iron Man and Sage. So why do these heroes endure, instead of getting hammered like their cerebral brethren?

First, we'll look at your examples. And remember, a few of these guys are on my above list. The genius thing isn't always an easy gig, even for the lucky.

<Snip>
Atom, after being betrayed by his ex, shrinks down to subatomic size for "the foreseeable future".

Yet another victim of Identity Crisis.

You forgot to mention the Blue Beetle here, by the way... =)

John Henry Irons, after being killed and resurrected, retires and needs physical therapy to walk with the implication that he's suffered brain damage from just seconds of being clinically dead.

It seems like Steel has been taking flak for a while. Ironically, he could a similar role to what Iron Man does next to Thor in the Avengers. More on that later...

Reed Richards has lost his intelligence at least three times and was dead for YEARS.

But they brought him back, which raises the question of why...

Emil Hamilton went crazy.

Barry Allen died.

Superman lost his super-intellect after Crisis.

All true.

When discussing Batman in the context of his genius, there is possibly no more reviled character online. Everyone wants him to "get what's coming to him" or to be shown up by other heroes.

Well, in fairness to fans, Batman is generally portrayed as a huge fink these days -- and while he never admits to the slightest error, his long-range plans are often shown lurching wildly out of control. And threatening lots of innocent people, in particular the heroes around him (Tower of Babel, War Games, etc).

Niles Caulder went insane.

I think this was seen as good storytelling at the time... a plot twist that came out of nowhere and recast the entire history of a team that had existed for years and years. Certainly it came on the end of what's generally considered the definitive run of the book. The downside? It kinda knocked the wind out of all those stories portraying Caulder as a noble, selfless hero.

Emil Hamilton went insane.

Brainiac 5 went insane, got better, lost his one and only major girlfriend in Crisis. Then, when Andromeda was introduced as her replacement, she married his best friend.

Nope, it's not easy to be a supergenius. So why do the guys and gals on my list seem to make it? Well, let's look at them one by one.

Iron Man
Iron Man doesn't appeal to his base through intelligence alone. Look, the guy's powers may be derived from his genius, but in battle he's basically a superstrong flying guy with hefty energy/force blasts. And a few other pieces of tech. Sure, he's smart and often chimes in with important scientific information, but Tony hits home on a very primal human (and particularly male) level -- a common interest in using tools, including weapons, to exceed our "natural" limitations.

A guy with an interest in motorcycles, airplanes, computers, medieval weapons or even guns doesn't need to be told what Stark represents. Furthermore, because his genius is often in the background, it seemlessly supports the strongest concept behind Iron Man -- the idea that technology can do more than solve specific problems, but can in fact make mortal men superhuman.

The version of posthumanity Iron Man represents is very familiar to us -- a superstrong flying guy with energy blasts and some other convenient gifts. And a cell phone. Not a Jupiter-sized supercomputer brain protected by robotic scoutships and incomprehensible ultratech. So it's easy to live with him.

But to return to my list above, Iron Man usually defuses all of the major genius problems. Lack of passion? He appeals to readers as a warrior, first and foremost. And while technology is important to him, Stark is the mythical smith, forging mighty weapons to slay the dragon. And his tech also makes him superhuman in ways preferred by the majority of his fans -- non-invasive, convenient tech that makes him stronger than a hundred men, bulletproof and able to soar higher than the clouds.

Problems with "envy," "inadequacy/fear/hostility," "hard to understand" and "deus ex machina" endings are also covered by the above elements. Envy is also further blunted by the fact that many readers not only admire Stark's tech, but his life as well. At some level, it's easier for guys to feel some kind of superguy may have them outclassed. But given their "natural pecking order" it's disturbing when a wimpy scientist holds that kind of an edge. So Stark's alpha male, CEO/playboy lifestyle ironically makes him easier to stomach.

Hard to write? This one is key. On the one hand, there's plenty you can do with Iron Man without having to go into reams of technobabble. He can fly and blast and smite with the best of them. On the other hand, because his comic is Iron Man, no editor in their right mind is going to put someone on his book who doesn't want to write SF comics. There's absolutely no way to reshuffle the characters to eliminate the technology that's the main force in the book.

This solution to "hard to write" is actually critical to all of the above heroes. With the possible exception of Sage (who is a Claremont character, and hence associated with plenty of SF anyway), they all come from stories where either the hero's technical talents or other intellectual abilities (like detective skills) will be a central part of the storyline. You don't read Batman if you don't like detective work or brilliant tactics. You don't read the Fantastic Four if you're allergic to high technology in your comics. You don't read Birds of Prey to see Oracle say, "Gee, I wish there was something I could do to help from the clubhouse, Oracle. If only I had a cell phone or something. Or even learned to work computers!" =)

In addition, most of these heroes are surprisingly vulnerable, yet hands-on. Despite whatever physical limitations they may have compared to their fellow A-list or B-list superheroes, they get down and dirty and put themselves at great risk. Batman may be seen as arrogant, but never cowardly. If anything he often comes across as the most courageous super present, lacking invulnerability or any other superpowers to keep him safe. Aside from his wits and his incredibly well-honed abilities.

Because many of these characters do engage in physical combat and most of them don't have access to inconceivable supertech, they're much easier to write than a couple of superbrights fencing around with each other on higher intellectual planes.

(Note: Oracle, the one character listed who does sit back and fence with other supergeniuses, is being handled by a writer who can write such situations and who has already portrayed at least two such confrontations against Savant and Brainiac, respectively.)

I could say more, but I think I'll let this rest.

<Snip>

Ralph

[matterconsumer]

Iron Man as an alcoholic certainly conveys something altogether different than panel after panel of explicating gadget innards...

[the4thpip]

http://img153.echo.cx/img153/4483/b0001rfn6s02lzzzzzzz2ty.jpg

New new logo?

[Michael P]

Damn, pip, that's just wrong.

[MacQuarrie]

http://img153.echo.cx/img153/4483/b0001rfn6s02lzzzzzzz2ty.jpg

New new logo?
DC stands for Dead Characters?

[The Beast Of Yucca Flats]

I call it "Trekification" of media. Watch TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT; then look at any engineer, hacker, or technofetishist in the world. Trek takes nerds and beats the geek out them.

And Star Trek's popularity has been in decline for years. Coincidence?

[CaptMagellan]

PatrickG, you could take your posts in this thread and use them as a 1st draft for a very worth while article.

In regards to Batman, I've definitely been getting the impression that the editors, writers, and readers have been stuck in a demonizing circuit for a couple of years.

Batman went from being the brilliant uber-bat of Morrison or Kelly into the anti-social, overly paranoid, destructive, too damn smart for his or anyone else's good, demon-batjerk of Wargames, ID Crisis, Countdown, OMAC, Rebirth, etc.

The thing that really makes this apparent is that instead of the readers (the majority that post online at least) crying "Hey, I don't like the way you guys are writing this character... he's supposed to be a hero, not a jerk" they're crying "Yeah, I hate batman, I hope he gets what's coming to him."

Which is interesting because, why does Batman 'deserve' to get comuppance? Until fairly recently, he hadn't done anything to deserve that. He'd paid for his screw up with the whole Tower of Babel thing in JLA #50. And his recent 'crimes' have been heavy handed marketing stunts leading into all of the ID crises, Infinite Crises, etc.

What else has he done to evoke such ill will? Well, let's see... he's been the smartest hero in the DC universe. Maybe that's always been enough and the mob have just been waiting with their torches and pitchforks for the excuse.

[CaptMagellan]

Here's another interesting anecdote about people identifying with 'stupid' people.

I just got back from the Chicago Blues Festival (which was way cool) and during the flight back to SF yesterday I was watching the inflight shows. One of the shows was an excerpt from Jay Leno regarding the frightening statistics about how few Americans read anymore.

The bit consisted of Leno interviewing 20-30 somethings off the street asking basic questions about literature (what was Moby Dick; who wrote Huck Finn; finish this phrase "The Tortoise and the ____"; what is a hare). Almost every person got the questions wrong and their wrong answer was accompanied by a laugh track.

On the surface it looked like it was making fun of how stupid people have become. But that wasn't really the vibe. The vibe was more like Homer Simpson. It felt more like excusing people for not reading. It felt like a way for viewers who also didn't know the answers to identify with these people and feel justified.

It was a weird bit. I hope I was wrong and was reading the wrong stuff into it.

[CaptMagellan]

And here's an interesting thread on the DC boards regarding whether people hate Batman or not...

http://dcboards.warnerbros.com/web/thread.jspa?threadID=2000028132&tstart=0

It's a bit like watching wrestling.