A lot of my writer friends have been away this week at the Romance Writers of America National Conference, this year in Washington D.C. I’ve been enjoying their updates on Twitter. Thanks to Twitter, I knew almost immediately last night that my friend and fellow History Hoyden, Pam Rosenthal, had won RWA’s Rita award for Best Historical Romance for her wonderful The Edge of Impropriety.
One of the things I love about Pam’s writing is that her characters have, in Regency terms, “a keen understanding”–they’re brainy people who enjoy talking about ideas (The Edge of Impropriety’s hero and heroine are a classical scholar nd a Silver Fork novelist respectively). Another blog by Jean on the All About Romance blog this week on “The Beautiful Minds of Heroes” got me thinking about this more.
The first brilliant hero Jean mentions falling in love with is Sherlock Holmes. I confess I discovered Sherlock Holmes first through dramatizations (notably the fabulous Jeremy Brett series). I didn’t actually read the Arthur Conan Doyle stories until I discovered Laurie King’s Russell & Holmes books. Because much as I love brainy characters on their own, I particularly love intellectual and romantic partnerships between two exceptionally brilliant people. There’s the fun of watching two fine minds click, especially over solving a problem. I love the scenes of Russell and Holmes talking through a case. The same is true of Peter Wimsey and Harriet Vane, and I’m particularly fond of a scene in Have His Carcase where they break a code together. Mulder and Scully’s debates about science and paranormal phenomenon were one of the delights of The X-Files.
There’s also the inevitable clash of two people who love to think. As Miss de Vine says to Harriet in Gaudy Night, “A marriage of two independent and equally irritable intelligences seems to me reckless to the point of insanity. You can hurt one another so dreadfully.” That’s certainly true of Peter and Harriet and also of Holmes and Russell and Mulder and Scully. In all three cases, a determination to battle a problem through intellectually and a refusal to open up emotionally can leave the other partner feeling shut out. Peter in Busman’s Honeymoon, Holmes in The Language of Bees, Scully battling her cancer, Mulder coping with family revelations.
I love writing about brainy characters. The intellectual debates, the fun with words, the angst of clashing minds. In theory, at least, Mélanie, Charles, and Raoul are all brilliant. Of course, that means the author has to keep up with them, which is sometimes a challenge :-).
Do you like reading about brainy characters? Do you like them paired with a partner of equal brilliance? Any interesting examples to suggest? Writers, do you like writing about brainy characters? What are the challenges?
Mélanie’s mind is more on matters frivolous than intellectual in this week’s Fraser Correspondence addition, as she writes to Isobel Lydgate about the masked ball at the Hofburg that opened the Congress of Vienna.
As a postscript, going back to last week’s post, I’m listening to Sondheim’s A Little Night Music as I write this. Speaking of characters who talk about books and ideas, I love Frederick’s catalogue of books as he tries to figure out how to get Anne into bed, particularly “Stendal would ruin the plan of attack as there isn’t much blue in the red and the black.”
Tracy Grant - Novelist 
July 20, 2009 at 2:03 pm
I do enjoy brainy characters; but these days, there seems to be a streak of anti-intellectualism in entertainment. Smart, educated characters exist as butts of jokes for dummy “heroes”.
Or they are villainous foils to the uneducated hero. (Who is often shown as proud of his lack of education – who needs it!)
And NO, I’m not knocking blue-collar guys. I know some damn smart ones. I’m speaking of the current trend to mock scholars and thinkers.
July 20, 2009 at 4:30 pm
JMM, I wish there were more characters who loved thinking and reading and learning and talking about ideas. Also “AlI can think of a few on tv currently actually–House on “House” (inspired by Sherlock Holmes), Temperance Brennan on “Bones,” some of the characters on “Lost” (who are an intriguing mix), the family on “Brothers Sisters” (who’s dinner parties frequently turn into political debates). But I’d love to see more!
July 21, 2009 at 3:13 am
I don’t like House much anymore – he’s gone from loveable grouch to selfish jerk without redeeming qualities.
“Bones” is good; I like the chemistry and the smart heroine.
Have you seen “Numb3rs”? Math genius helps FBI brother solve crimes. Makes math sexy! Not to mention the yummy eye candy for discriminating women of all tastes. Rawrrr…
But no, it seems entertainment is all about making intelligent, serious people the butt of jokes and mockery.
July 21, 2009 at 4:14 am
I haven’t seen “Numb3rs.” Thanks for the recommendation!
I love the chemistry on Bones (and the whole ensemble of smart, quirky, interesting people). Have you seen “Castle”? It also has great chemistry. The hero (the wonderful Nathan Fillion) is a mystery writer, and the show gets a lot of the details of the writer’s life really well (which a lot of movies and tv shows don’t). Such as a scene where Castle is in a book store the day his book is released, worrying no one is buying it. Then a woman picks it up, and he’s so excited, only to have her glance at the cover and set it down.
July 23, 2009 at 11:44 pm
I do love to read a series where both the leading characters are intelligent and literate. I just finished the latest Holmes/Russell and enjoyed immensely the way Russell supported and pushed Holmes this time around while he was so worried about her in Locked Rooms. Have been enjoying Castle the second time around. Good dialogue and interesting cases. I really enjoyed the characters of Francis Crawford and Phillipa in Dorothy Dunnetts Lymond novels.
July 24, 2009 at 12:08 am
Donna, I loved the contrast between “Locked Rooms” and ‘The Language of Bees” with Russell confronting personal demons in the first and Holmes in the second. I thought they both grew a lot in both books.
Glad you’re enjoying Castle. It does have wonderful dialogue!
July 26, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Smart is sexy. And it’s always fun when a smart woman finds a smart man who enjoys her intelligence instead of trying to crush it. Which, while this is much better in the 21st century than it used to be in the 19th, it is still far from the norm (based on the women my husband’s friends all married.)
Plus i am WAY over 18 yr. old virgins worrying about what dress to wear to Almack’s. Give me an intelligent woman dealing with issues of substance that were relevant to her time but still applicable to our time (and unfortunately some things never change – war, family violence, etc.) It is interesting to see how the smart people then dealt with thorny issues – and mostly it was through communication. So often, even now with all the ways we can communicate through technology, how things break down because people don’t share what they are thinking. (Charles and Melanie are included here – but we’re rooting for them!)
July 26, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I so agree smart is sexy, Taryn (in fact, to me it’s the sexiest quality a character can have). I think the fact that a smart woman finding a smart man who appreciates her intelligence was more rare in the 18th/19th centuries is why this is particularly interesting in historical fiction. Although there certainly were men who appreciated their wives’ and mistresses’ intelligence (John and Abigail Adams, Metternich and the Duchess of Sagan who I’m researching now, Talleyrand and numerous of his mistreses, etc…). “Freedom & Necessity” by Steven Brust & Emma Bull is a great example of an historical (Victorian) couple who appreciate each other’s minds. And a heroine who resists marriage because of what it means legally at the time.
I love historical fiction that examines those thorny issues that are still relevant today. It’s nice to have characters who are engaged by those issues.
I think you’re right, perhaps in a way the more deeply people think about things, the harder it is to share their thoughts and perhaps the more likely they are to disagree. That’s definitely true of Charles & Mel–but that’s what makes them interesting to write–and hopefully read!–about.