/lit/ - Literature

>>11407404
maybe writing isn't for you.

>>11407428
It's okay, Anon. If you don't know the answer either you can just admit it.

>>11407459
use your imagination you dumbfuck

Imagine you are writing DFW

test

you can give him credentials ala the doctor lawyer from stranger in a strangeland
i didnt like how that was written though
maybe strive for writing characters with the characteristics of smart people you know?

>>11407404
Make all of the other characters respect their opinions.

Then make them a black one legged tranny so people don't say that you're self-inserting yourself into the story.

Just be someone else

Make it seem like they're just too lazy to do anything smart

>>11407404
It shouldn't even be difficult. You have the benefit of having time to research wtf the character is saying. for every smart off hand thing they say you have as much time as you want to research it.

>>11407404
just make him/her right and eventually lead up to the point where h says something opinionated that can be disagreed with because of all the other stuff that he said was true
for example, if he/she said some facts about plants while in the park (which you can look up on wikipedia) then they will seem knowledgeable in that subject . just have them spout facts until the eventual opinion

>>11407578
can't*

Just pretend to be retarded and write average characters.

>>11407588
Based

>>11407575
>>11407578
Yeah but that's the problem isn't it? It's easy to make someone look knowledgeable, since you can look up just about anything. But it's not easy to write someone who actually knows how to use their knowledge properly unless you know it yourself.

For example, you could write a lawyer who knows every law there is, because you can just look up any law that's relevant to your story. But it's hard to know how a lawyer would use their knowledge of those laws and the legal system unless you're content with just bullshitting something up, which isn't as convincing. You can fake knowledge, but you can't fake intelligence and experience. Unless your intention is to write on the level of the average TV show and assume nobody gives a fuck about accuracy.

I've thought about working backwards. Essentially giving the character the "meta knowledge" they need and then working backwards to explain how they'd even know that (almost Sherlock Holmes style), but again that just comes down to faking knowledge, not necessarily intelligence.

I'm just interested in how other people approach this problem. It's easy to pretend to be dumb, but pretending to be smart often makes you look even dumber to someone who's actually smarter.

>>11407477
boy that's a textbook non-answer if I ever saw one.

>>11407404
Go the realistic route and write a character that just thinks he's significantly more intelligent than everyone else.

write the character as you normally would, but give them a capacity to doubt better, longer, and harder.

>>11407637
Did you ever learn how to plan? Just think backwards. In every situation, make the intelligent character end in a win-state. How do they get to this win-state? Well, in what situation would that win-state be achievable? And in what situation would that situation be achievable? And in what situation would that be achievable? Keep on doing this reverse planning until you get to the characters present situation.

Making characters seem "book smart" isn't as fun to read as someone who can beat the opponent using logic. Intelligence is always more entertaining then knowledge.

>>11409593
>Did you ever learn how to plan?
Did you ever learn how to read?