flannan said:PeripheralVision said:
Literally anyone can write the aftermath of an event that would require cunning and intelligence to cause, it is making a believable method in the first place. Keeping it offscreen is a way for the author to write it without actually putting any thought in it, and I generally call this lazy if the anime truly wants to focus on it.
It is no different than stating a character has an IQ of 1000. It is all inferred ability, not actually shown.
Indeed. That's why I compared one off-screen feat of manipulation with another.
The people in my answer to your first post did clever things where we were able to see them, though.
PeripheralVision said:
I think he stated something along what I have stated, depending on the interpretation of the thread. I abide by the adage "A writer cannot write a character smarter than himself". By that, I would argue that any show of intelligence of a fictional character have to be thought of by the author in the first place, seeing as how said character doesn't exist.
Essentially, one has to understand the intricacies of their intelligence in whatever situation, similar to how an engineer can write an incredibly in-depth look into engineering in his work. As an engineer, he would have to be sufficiently knowledgeable in whatever field he works in.
One can state a character has an IQ of 200, comes from MIT, and builds interstellar transportation. It is another to show that intelligence in work.
No, I am not referring to the scientific discovery of a transporter, but things such as deductive reasoning based on both assumptions and incredible observation, gamblers who don't depend on luck, but rather make do, characters who can make great decisions in battle tactics instead of using a super prototype to destroy whole fleets.
A great thing for me is to limit the assumptions an intelligent character will act on in some cases.
I disagree that the author has to be as clever as his characters. An author can think comfortably in his chair while drinking coffee in a timespan of a week, while his characters are fighting for their lives with a mind-numbing horror in a timespan of a few minutes.
With sufficient research, borrowing the knowledge and wisdom of people who thought about the things before, and glossing over minor details that boggle down real life, the author can achieve a lot.
Whether it's inventing gunpowder or building a Dyson Sphere, you can just look it up on the net nowadays.
That isn't what I am saying, but it depends on what the thread is asking. I am emphasizing a "show, don't tell" perspective. I of course, also believe the author should not get too hung up, but there is a reason I interpret the premise as being best viewed as a writing quality than a character's trait.
Mainly since if we based it off a character's trait, determined by the author's tell (IQ score, accomplishments, etc.), everyone would be up all night trying to one up one another, since this is something anyone can do.
Showing to me, requires a deft adroitness in story telling to be convincing. In the end, I do believe a character is by nature as smart as the author. Even researching past methods, while demonstrating knowledge, is not equivalent to understanding the material, especially in an abstract free thought manner. Or essentially, just basic logic at heart. My example isn't literal, as I will explain below.
I could have a child recite the three laws of physics or thermodynamics or anything, but that is merely rote memorization, not understanding. Merely copying it before, in mind or on paper, isn't understanding. The author has to cleverly use it for it to merely be not copy and paste, to understand it to not simply be memorizing. I wasn't referring to specialty in a field, but merely using one's brain.
Of course, if we are thinking about how fast these solutions are developed in the fictional work versus real life, than I see what you mean then, though I wasn't specifically referring to that. I apologize for not clearing that up.
My criticism of Johan Liebert is that Urasawa wrote him to be an unknowable manipulator behind the scene, and this persists in the 74 episode adaptation, where Johan rarely appears in lieu of his "victims". |