Essay talk:Burning Staw: The Smart Guy

I've watched a lot of older movies from the 30s-eary 60s.This sort of thing doesn't really start being noticeable until the 50s, in a number of serials the "smart guy" is the hero. Тyrannis An iron, but caring, fist 19:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So much for a 'golden age' ... ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR garrulous en guerre 19:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The 50s, you say?--ZooGuard (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed that a few days ago, after watching The Deadly Mantis (riffed by MST3K). The Air Force seems to feature in a lot of Sci-Fi movies from that era, I assume it was because the the Air Force was the most technically-savvy (and in a speculative war against space invaders, would be vital to detect and intercept attacking spacecraft in Earth's atmosphere). Perhaps it was transition of smart guy to airman to Rambo? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a theory hypothesis...
So, after thinking about this, I've got an idea as to why this might be the case. It's no secret that successful fiction is frequently successful because consumers can identify with the protagonist. While most people consider themselves "smart" at least on some level, having a genuinely smart protagonist can make them harder to identify with. It's much easier, when the protagonist succeeds through "courage", to imagine oneself being brave in the same situation, but if the protagonist succeeds through having some kind of knowledge (or any sort of intelligence that isn't metis) then it becomes harder for an audience that doesn't have that knowledge to project themselves into the protagonist's shoes.

Of course, part of the issue could also be that "smart" characters are much harder to write believably - because they require the writer to be at least moderately informed on "smart" issues. I read once that this is the reason why the Riddler was rarely featured in the Batman animated series (the original, good one) - as an extremely "smart" villain, whose entire shtick is being smart, writing episodes that showcased that intelligence was incredibly difficult and time consuming due to the amount of outside research required.

But now that I bring up Batman, depending on the writer, he does end up being one example of a "smart" protagonist. Trying to think of other recent examples where an intelligent person is not played for laughs, pretty much every one I could think of was a comic book character. The only other character that immediately comes to mind is Hermione of Harry Potter. Omar (gibber) 13:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much my feelings exactly: A character is only as smart as the writer. When I write fiction, one of my unspoken rules is to never, ever write a character smarter than myself. Yes, it's sad that I can't personally claim someone's a supergenius. But better a good character that I can manage than a character I'll think I hit, but really only could produce a poor facimilie of what they should be. However, when I've had to write very very intelligent people I find that collaboration or beta reading helps. So on the other hand, writing somebody smart can come down to effort in writing and by getting the brains of more than one person involved... meaning that the effort isn't there, and nobody seems to be commenting on it... It all really comes down to execution. I dunno. Even if we can't write a really smart protagonist within my lifetime, I'd like to see the trends of strawmanning the smart supporting characters dissolve. Hermione was a good start, we just need more... Also you're reminding me to read more comic books. 8I ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR garrulous en guerre 01:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at more than just stuff, that's aimed specifically at kids, then you see, that there are quite a few characters, that are smart and also the hero. For instance: Sherlock Holmes (btw: pretty much every hero of a detective's story, including Batman, is usually smart); William of Baskerville (The Name of the Rose, which could also be seen as a detectivestory...), Doctor Faust, Pierre Besuchow, Dr. Franenstein etc. or, since you seem to have an interest in mangas: L. and N. from Death Note (not really the heroes but I'll get to that later) or Dr. Kenzo Tenma from Monster. There are a few more. ORavenhurst rightly pointed out, that it is important that the audience can identify themselves with the hero. The reason why comics, which are aimed at kids, don't have intellectual heroes is simple: Kids are stupid. I say that as an educator. Sure, all kids have potential, many kids are smart, some kids are really intelligent, but very few kids have the broad knowledge necessary for identifyying with a genuinely smart person/hero and most kids are just outright stupid. So of course comics and cartoons are designed to specifically appeal to that demographic.

The other point I wanted to interject: Just because a character is the 'hero', does not mean that people will identify with them. Alyosha Karamazov is clearly the hero of the Brothers Karamazov, but I found Ivan and even Fyodor much more intriguing and was better able to identify with them. Or to make an example from a comic: Luffy is clearly the hero of One Piece, but I think Sanji and Zoro are much cooler. Anyhow, that was my ramble,--Th. Bernhard (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not commenting on so much the fact of people actually relating to them (plenty of people relate to Sherlock Holmes, even when Doyle despaired of it; I myself relate to many non-focal and even undesirable characters) but the fact that being dull-witted is often targeted at us as relatable. It's sure as heck not what most people actually relate to, but the expectation that one should like them because they are 'just like you' is what bugs me, where more intelligent or even just more critical characters are often 'the other' (and Sherlock Holmes, for example again, was very much an 'other!') when in fact it's part of our daily lives and shouldn't be considered intimidating or antagonistic. So yeah, I understand why much of kids media is targeted at dumb kids, but not why it pits them against the 'smart kids.' And I doubly don't like the attitude leaking into more grown-up media: that intellectuals are either opposition or ridiculous/out-of-touch and should be laughed at.


 * Also I like your taste of literature, but on the field of The Japanese Animes I am more of a Yu Yu Hakusho and Fullmetal Alchemist girl nowadays. ±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR yeah, well you fight like a cow! 19:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Why now are the 'dumb' heroes pitted against the 'smart' kids? Because 'literatures' appeal is and always was to give one an escape into an alternate reality. The dumb hero beating the smart character via will power is a very nice illusion, cause will power, opposed to being intelligent, does not require any work. That's why this scenario is even appealing to smart kids. To actually be intelligent you have to work, you have to fill your head with knowledge. Wouldn't it be nice, if we could get through life by simply activating something that was allready inside of us (i.e. will power, determination, haki, kyubi), instead of having to work and refine our abilities?
 * Are more citical and more intelligent people part of our daily lives? I would say no. I thought like that once too, but during my time at the university I realised that a large majority of students, assistants and even professors were not really what I would call intelligent, some were actually rather dumb (since I've read your professor-essays I suppose you made a similar realization). Even more frustrating was the insight, that I was a part of that majority. So I would argue that intellectualism is not only an 'other' in most literature but also in our real life.


 * A propos manga/anime: I also enjoyed Full Metal Alchemist very much. Did not know the Yu Yu Hakusho. You might also enjoy Lucifer and Biscuit Hammer or if you are more into seinen, Homunculus or Dorohedoro (unfortunately ongoing).--Th. Bernhard (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "To actually be intelligent you have to work..." Oh crap, I've been doing it wrong all this time! I thought filling my head with knowledge was fun. :( Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To stop thinking, for instance by filling your head with legal and illegal substances can be fun as well ;-). But in seriousness: I do think that filling your head with knowledge becomes less fun, once you start to go to school and have to fill your head, opposed to formerly just wanting to. It actually gets worse, once you choose to study in your field of interest. What used to be a fun pasttime becomes a noto fun fulltime job, it becomes work.--Th. Bernhard (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." -Mark Twain Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hofstadter
Ever read ? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Relevant article
I know the author of this essay has not been around, but io9 has put out an article about SF as "competence porn", basically, where the hero succeeds because they are smart.--TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)