How to have a massively intelligent character without alienating your audience, with Charlie Eppes

Here’s the next post in this series where I discuss TV shows and movies and the knowledge that we can gain from watching them. We can apply that knowledge to our writing. As always, I never pretend to be an expert. I just like exploring my own thoughts on the matter as I write these blog posts! I welcome all comments and would love to hear what you think about this topic.

Make sure you check out my previous post, titled, “How to turn a bad guy into a good guy, with Damon Salvatore.”

Numb3rs is an oldie but goodie (as in, it’s not on TV anymore) that I used to watch when it was live on TV. I never saw the whole show, or even a large part of it, but seeing as it’s on Netflix Streaming in its entirety, I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to stare at David Krumholtz watch it from the beginning.

If you’re unfamiliar, the show centers around two brothers. One is an FBI agent (Don) and the other is a brilliant mathematician (Charlie). (Don’t make that face. I don’t like math either. But this show is awesome.) Charlie consults for his brother and helps him solve cases. It’s a pretty basic plot, your typical procedural, but the writing is strong and the characters are dynamic and interesting.

I’m only through the first season in my rewatch, but I knew I wanted to write a post on Charlie and why he’s such a fantastic character.

You see, it’s easy to have a genius main character. They have all the answers. They can solve all the problems. They wrap up the plot in a neat little bow and look hella cool doing it. And that’s fine, to an extent. But what happens when that alienates your audience? What happens when the character is so smart the readers can’t follow along? It makes them feel stupid, and they end up putting down your book.

That’s what makes this show so great. Don is our second main character. He brings Charlie down to our level. He’s a good agent, but he’s not a genius, not like his brother. He often doesn’t understand what Charlie is saying when he starts spewing out all those mathematical terms that the average viewer won’t understand either. Don makes Charlie slow down and explain it in layman’s terms.

Without Don, the audience would say the show was too confusing and wouldn’t tune in every week.

The other great part about this is what Charlie does to explain the conclusions he comes to via his mathematical analysis. In one episode, he explains to Don that he can take the locations of various murders and use them to pin-point the area of origin – the area where the killer most likely lives. Instead of showing Don the equation and going through it step by step with him – which wouldn’t help, because Don (and the audience) wouldn’t understand – Charlie points to a sprinkler that’s sitting in their yard. Knowing where each drop has landed, he would be able to reverse their trajectory and find out exactly where they originated – where the sprinkler is located.

See, that I understand.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a clip of that scene, but here’s another one that does a good job of making math understandable and interesting:

 
The same thing happens in Sherlock. John Watson isn’t on Sherlock’s level, and when Sherlock has to explain something to him, he’s indirectly explaining it to us too. Sherlock by himself wouldn’t be as interesting or as engaging. He would mostly just be looking at things for a few seconds, telling the cops who did it, and walking away. At least with John there, he has to take the time to bring him into the loop, along with the audience.

So, how do you do this in your book? If you’ve got a super-intelligent character (ie. Hermione), make sure there’s another character that your audience can better relate to (ie. Harry or Ron). It’s not that your audience isn’t intelligent – and this is by no means me telling you to dumb down your story in order to make it more understandable – it’s that extremely intelligent characters often need an Average Joe to slow them down and tell them to explain their conclusions. Otherwise, you have something like:

*Sherlock walks into a room, looks around*
“Mrs. Pennyworth was killed by Mr. Jacobson with a curling iron and a box of tissues at 8:36 yesterday morning.”
*Sherlock walks out of the room*

Sure, that’s all fine and dandy, but it makes the solutions to the problems seem too easy and too obvious, even when they’re not.

Plus, let’s face it, most people don’t have an IQ equal to Sherlock’s. We need someone like John to make him talk in English.

Do you have a super intelligent main character? How do you make him or her relatable? Who’s your favorite smart person on TV? Have you ever seen Numb3rs?

Fandom Thoughts [Supernatural/The Vampire Diaries/Sherlock]

I’ve been a good little writer recently (and a good procrastinator). I’ve been watching tons of movies and TV shows on Netflix. I never realized how much they can teach you about novel writing until I really started widening my horizons. For a taste of what I mean, check out my writing category and look at my “How to…” posts. I take a character and a trait from a TV show or movie and break it down to see why it works and how it can help us out as writers.

So, naturally, I’ve become invested in more television shows than I have time for. I’ve recently gotten caught up with Supernatural, The Vampire Diaries, and Sherlock. This is a post about my thoughts on each show because I don’t really have anywhere else where I can ramble on and on about them. And, yes, that’s your warning. This is a ramble.

(Also, I tried not to give anything major away, but this post does contain some light spoilers.)

The Road So Far on Supernatural

I saw the first few episodes of Supernatural when they aired about eight years ago (whoa). I’m not sure why I didn’t keep watching, but I can only guess that it was because I was too scared to continue.

Yeah, I know. I have a low tolerance for scary stuff. A very, very low tolerance.

But I took it up again recently and watched all seven seasons within a few weeks, trying to catch up on the series before the eighth season began. I really enjoyed it. Without knowing much about the series to begin with, I got a full experience of the twists and turns and I was really taken in by everything that happened.

One of my favorite things about this show is that the story weaves its way through all of the seasons. What happened in the very first episode has ramifications that carry on to the most recent episodes. Some shows tend to have a single “big bad” each season and when you look at the first season compared to the last, the show feels completely different.

Not Supernatural. It honestly feels like you’ve been in the Impala for eight years, driving around with the Winchester brothers. Sure, they’ve grown up and things have changed. People have come and gone. Big bads have been defeated and new ones have popped up. But it essentially feels like the same show to me, and I love that. It makes it feel a lot more realistic.

The humor in this show is just out of the park. Dean’s sarcastic “sasshole” (<– new favorite word, thanks to my friend Caitlin) attitude just makes you shake your head and laugh. His one liners are so wrong sometimes, but I’d like to meet a person who can honestly not laugh at them. (“A Hand of Glory? I think I got one of those at the end of my Thai massage last week.”) And not only that, but there are some episodes (like any of the ones with the Ghostfacers crew in them) that you literally just can’t stop laughing at. One of my favorites was when Sam and Dean were trying to tell Bobby a story about a case and they were telling their version of the story (2×15 “Tall Tales”), which put each brother in quite an interesting light.

There are some things that I don’t like about the show. I find the constant fighting between Dean and Sam a little tiring sometimes. Not that it’s not realistic, but I’m so invested in them as a team that whenever one decides to leave, it really hurts. The human heart can only take so much.

My one other big quibble? We need more Cas. Like, seriously. Please? I find myself just waiting for him to pop up because I love him so much. His dead-pan face, his unintentional humor, and his deep caring for Dean just make me want to hug him. (Or “glomp” him, which is another new word I learned recently.) Can he just be in every episode already? My heart hurts when he is away too long.

Previously on The Vampire Diaries

I was pleasantly surprised by The Vampire Diaries when I first started watching it. I thought it was going to be a little too Twilight-esque (not that I have a huge problem with Twilight, but it’s been done so there’s no need to repeat it). What I found was a show that incorporated love, but also made sure there were tons of interesting characters, scary bad guys, and some awesome vampire fight scenes. Can’t argue with that.

My favorite thing about this show is Damon. Which, I mean…come on. (Debra, if you’re out there, you know what I’m talking about. We have pretty much the same opinion on this subject matter.) Not only is he incredibly easy on the eyes, but his character is also really fun and interesting. The other characters also all bring something to the table, whether they’re good, bad, or just enjoy making some trouble. Caroline is another favorite. (Expect a post on her soon.)

This show also genuinely surprises me. Very few shows actually do this anymore. Very few shows actually make me gasp out loud. I love twists and turns, and I love last-minute reveals right before the end credits come up. (Although, I say that having watched the first three seasons on Netflix. Now that I have to watch this show on a weekly basis, I’m sure this is going to be a major complaint for me.)

The first few episodes were a little hard to get through because “love” occurs so quickly between the main characters. But, you know, whatever. That’s a problem with a lot of television and movies, so I’ve learned to just accept it as unrealistic and ignore it. I’m also kind of over the love triangle thing – especially since I don’t agree with Elena’s choice (go figure). Also, is it just me, or does anyone else find Stefan incredibly boring? He got a little more interesting as of late, but I still don’t really care too much for his character.

What the heck just happened on Sherlock?

I’m going to preface this with the bad, and then get into the good because that’s how I have sort of made my way through this show.

I had heard of Sherlock through Hypable and through the people that already watched Doctor Who. Steven Moffat writes for both shows and since I already enjoyed his work with Doctor Who, I decided to take up Sherlock as well. And, as it was already on Netflix, what was there to lose?

The first episode was incredible. I was totally impressed by Benedict Cumberbatch (who plays Sherlock) and the way the character was portrayed. If you’re unfamiliar, he’s a “high functioning sociopath” as the character himself claims, and goes about solving mysteries and making people very, very angry. It’s a good old time.

But I also really enjoy how the show is set up. Text appears on the screen in order to show us what Sherlock is seeing when he views a dead body, or what kind of text messages the characters get. You’d think this would take you immediately out of the show, but it truly doesn’t. It helps to prove how incredible Sherlock is without an overabundance of explanatory dialogue.

The second episode fell through for me, as did the third. They didn’t seem to have the same punch and I wasn’t as interested in the mysteries. Maybe it was just me, as I’ve heard tons of people rave about the show for months and months. Perhaps I’ll do a rewatch to figure out if I still feel that way. All I know is that I watched the first episode and fell in love, then watched the second one and fell out of love.

Not that I’d drop the series all together. I knew it would get better and, well, I have a problem putting things down once I pick them up.

The second series just recently hit Netflix, so I sat down to watch the first episode, hoping that it would give me the same feelings that it gave me when I watched that series premiere.

It didn’t. It gave me MORE.

I was blown away by the first episode. I sat down to watch it and ended up doing a marathon until I finished the second series. (It’s only three episodes long, but they’re 1 ½ hours each.) The new characters were incredible and dynamic and interesting. Moriarty was everything that I ever wanted in a bad guy and so much more. He was completely insane and I loved every second of it. A truly, nearly undefeatable bad guy is so hard to find nowadays. No pre-killing monologues. No stupid revenge schemes. He really just wanted to ruin Sherlock in every way possible. He knew exactly where to hit him, and he hit him so hard that it knocked the wind out of the greatest detective of all time.

And Sherlock. Oh, Sherlock.

We got to see such a different side of him this series. He’s not completely emotionless. He does understand love. He does feel. His relationship with Watson is lovely, and the connection between him and Irene Adler was confusing, tragic, and yet somehow beautiful. I love this show because it’s so complex, but it’s non-apologetic about it. It gives you what it wants to give you and forces you to draw your own conclusions.

I’m pretty sure this show makes me smarter, too. After I finish watching it, I find I’m a lot more sarcastic and witty (to the chagrin of my friends, I’m sure). I also feel like a pseudo-detective, drawing conclusions from crinkled gum wrappers and empty glasses. I may not be as good as Sherlock, but that won’t stop me from trying.

And that episode 3 ending? Oh, that ending. Just wait for it because it’s beautiful and haunting and absolutely perfect.

[/End Rambling]

So what conclusions can we draw from this?

1. I have too much time on my hands.
2. I need more of a social life.
3. I spend a lot of time watching TV, and I will forever claim that it’s to become a better writer.
4. These shows are amazing.
5. I want you to give them all a chance. Get a Netflix subscription and start watching!!

What do you guys like or dislike about these three shows? Seeing as I’ve written an essay, long and rambling comments are totally allowed!

Your Audience is Smarter than it Looks

I decided to go with my original plan and finish out this two part post I have going on. Details of my road trip to Maryland will be up next week! (And because I’m long winded, a huge fan girl, and have tons of pictures, it’ll probably also be a two-parter.)

So, last week I talked about how you shouldn’t alienate your audience by talking down to them. I called out sci-fi writers for doing this especially, but I think there are these types of writers in any genre. Art snobs, theatre snobs, writer snobs – they all exist. And hey, that’s okay. Sometimes you know what you’re talking about and you deserve to let people know that. But there’s a time and a place. Just make sure it’s not hurting you in the long run.

But what about the flip side of that? Some people dumb down their work so much that it’s almost painful to read. A lot of writers are worried their audience won’t “get” what they’re trying to say. Actually, a fellow blogger wrote about this last week and pointed out some ways to avoid stating the obvious. It’s a lesson I’m still learning.

But there’s something else here. Something bigger than that. Something that a lot of people in the generation that came before mine just don’t get: young adults are smart. Like, really smart.

We might not look like it. Yes, we’re addicted to our phones. Yes, we play things like Mario Bros. that teach us absolutely no real world skills, except maybe that mushrooms can do some pretty trippy things to you. And yes, we often forget about the important things in life and worry about what kind of shoes make us look cool.

But you know what? There’s a lot more to us than that. And Steven Moffat, who is the current writer of both hugely successful shows Doctor Who and Sherlock, hit this very thing right on the head. The whole interview is right here, but this is the part that really stuck out to me:

Richard Bacon [reading a text from a fan]: ‘Please tell him not to give into pressure and dumb down Doctor Who.’ Are you under pressure to do that?
Steven Moffat: No, not really. No, I mean the show’s…I mean, I think that comes from the fact that some people are complaining that it was getting very hard to follow and they had to ask their children what was going on. But, you know, I think television should complicated. I think it should be demanding and the evidence would suggest that in the case of both Doctor Who and Sherlock that the audience flocks towards complexity. I think, you know, the audience is smart. The audience will always think faster than the writer, that’s the truth. I’m running to keep up with twelve year olds and failing all the time.
RB: I wonder if in a funny sort of way the kids embrace complexity more willingly than adults sometimes.
SM: I think that is absolutely true, because they will sit and watch Doctor Who while playing Angry Birds and tweeting about both of them and following them all perfectly while explaining to someone else and having a conversation. And my brain just doesn’t work that fast. And that’s the audience. That’s the next generation on the way. That’s what we have to keep up with. That’s who we have to entertain and engage, and the idea that we should dumb down is ridiculous. Don’t dumb down, just keep up.

This is a perfect lesson that I think all of us need to learn. And I know what you’re thinking: Um, didn’t you just tell us not to sound too smart, then go ahead and tell us not to dumb our writing down too much?

Yes. Yes, I did.

But, as with anything, there needs to be balance. You don’t want to write a textbook and you don’t want to write a children’s book (unless, of course, that’s exactly what you’re trying to write). Just go with your gut, and get lots of feedback. If I’ve learned anything, it’s that writing is a process. A really long one. And it’s not something you can do alone. And you know what? It’s not something you SHOULD do alone.

I know I tend to lean toward the complex – I usually read thick novels and I definitely prefer series over stand-alone books. Since I found Doctor Who I’ve come to the realization that it is one of my all-time favorite shows because it’s so complicated, intricate, and well written. But what do you think? Do you like short and easy reads, or the dense ones? Which ones do you usually write? Do you have trouble making your books smarter or do you struggle with making your stories understandable to the audience at large?

Movie Review – Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows

Bottom Line:

The first Sherlock Holmes has made it into my movie collection (150+ strong), so I HAD to see the second one.

Watch It.

Details:

[Safe waters ahead – no spoilers until the very end. Don’t worry, I’ll send up the red flag when we get there.]

So, over Christmas weekend I saw two movies – the first of which was Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows. I’m a big fan of the first movie – the dialogue and overall intelligence of that film was something that I have rarely seen. The acting was on point and the comedic timing was perfect. Robert Downey Jr. is a great Sherlock Holmes, and Jude Law was a surprisingly perfect Watson. One of my favorite things about the first movie was that the cinematography was innovative and unique. I loved the slow motion sequences and the way that the viewer was able to see what Holmes was thinking and how he picked up on the various clues (that were, unsurprisingly, right in front of us the whole time). Usually I don’t think anything of the way in which a movie was shot, but this definitely caught my attention in a good way.

(On a related note, I read an article the other day that described the five things that Guy Ritchie got right in this series that most other Holmes movies/shows get wrong. This was a great read, and something to think about while watching either one.)

The second installment in this series was not a disappointment. It kept a lot of the things I liked about the original: the back and forth banter between Holmes and Watson, the slow motion fight sequences where Holmes describes how he will take out his attacker, and the overall intelligence of the movie. And in so many ways, this did everything the first movie did but better. The banter was as witty as ever. The slow motion fight sequences had a few unique twists that kept it fresh from the first movie. And Holmes’ cleverness really knows no bounds. But even better than that was the bad guy: Moriarty. He really sold this film for me. Throughout the entire movie he was on equal footing with Holmes and he even – *gasp* – got the better of him once or twice!

I only have two complaints about the movie. The first one was the dialogue – in some places it just seemed forced. I loved the banter, as always, but some of it seemed a little over the top and silly. You can usually tell how funny a movie is by the number of times that my best friend elbows me in the side for laughing too loudly. This one was about a medium – she only did it twice. There were definitely some great lines, but some of them fell a bit flat, too. My second complaint was the pacing. The first three-quarters of the movie was a bit slow. However, when it did finally hit its stride, it hit it hard. The last bit was just absolutely incredible, and by the end I was behind this movie one hundred percent.

So, if you enjoyed the first movie I would definitely recommend this one. If you thought the first one was just okay, chances are you won’t enjoy the second one as much. This one is slower and a bit more complex, but definitely worth it if you can stick it out until the end.

So, what about the future of Sherlock? [SPOILER ALERT]

Apparently Warner Bros. is already set for making a third installation. I’m pretty happy about this, especially given how the second one ended. However, I hope that they come up with a villain that is even more interesting (if not as intelligent) as Moriarty. That’s going to be a tough obstacle, but one that is crucial to get around if they’re hoping for a good turnout for movie number three.

If you saw this movie, I’d love to know what you thought about it – especially compared to the first one. I’ve actually never gotten through an entire Sherlock Holmes novel (I was pretty young when I tried, and I just couldn’t get into it) so I’d be interested to see what you guys think of the movies compared to the books.