Sherlock Holmes and Beau Peep

[peter]

Sorry Tarks I have just jumped on to Roger side.
It is what I said earlier "Your are what you are." No clever no dumber.
Whether you research a subject or not you will only be able to put it into words that you under stand. Otherwise it will sound like gobbledegook, then you would not write it

[Mince]

I think we're arguing over the word "intelligent". To me, Doctor Who is more intelligent than the writer, Russell T Davies, because (as an example) Davies does not know how to travel in time.

If Davies did know how to travel in time, he could create a more believable time traveller (to the viewer), but it would still be the same Doctor Who character with the same intelligence. (Otherwise Doctor Who's intelligence would increase and decrease depending on who was writing the episode.)

[Vulture]

Sorry Tarks I have just jumped on to Roger side.

Well I've just ambled over to TT111's side. The reasoning he uses makes perfect sense.

[The Peepmaster]

Roger could introduce a character into Beau Peep who says he is a Rocket Scientist, has won Brain of Britain seven years in a row, and has had the highest IQ ever recorded by man. Now that character isn't brighter than Roger; he's just a work of fiction. Mince gave the impression that a character could be created who would then go on to show remarkably high intelligence through the intricate crime-solving storylines - something that the author himself wouldn't have the intelligence to solve. Well, if the writer hasn't got the nous to devise and solve these situations, how the hell can his character do it.. eh?.. eh??

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

I think we're arguing over the word "intelligent". To me, Doctor Who is more intelligent than the writer, Russell T Davies, because (as an example) Davies does not know how to travel in time.

If Davies did know how to travel in time, he could create a more believable time traveller (to the viewer), but it would still be the same Doctor Who character with the same intelligence. (Otherwise Doctor Who's intelligence would increase and decrease depending on who was writing the episode.)

No, we're arguing over the difference between creating a character in a book and what Baron Frankenstein did (had he not been a character in a book). Great argument, but ultimately extremely silly.

No-one has actually created, or even attempted to create a real person with a superior intellect, called Sherlock Holmes. Nor has anyone argued or suggested this is the case. What has been argued is that Doyle could, and did, create a fictional character with an intellect superior to his own.

It can be done. I do it here every day.

[Mince]

Well, if the writer hasn't got the nous to devise and solve these situations, how the hell can his character do it.. eh?.. eh??

Intelligence is not just about the ability to solve a problem, but the speed at which you do so. Doyle created/solved these problems at his leisure: Holmes solved them on the spot.

[The Peepmaster]

Well, if the writer hasn't got the nous to devise and solve these situations, how the hell can his character do it.. eh?.. eh??

Intelligence is not just about the ability to solve a problem, but the speed at which you do so. Doyle created/solved these problems at his leisure: Holmes solved them on the spot.

Mince - If a team of top scientists, sawed open the top of your head, removed your brain, then dissected it into twenty-three parts, each one stored on a separate plate before being sent to different research laboratories around the globe and scraped into respective bins, I'd be immensely satisfied!

[Vulture]

Well, if the writer hasn't got the nous to devise and solve these situations, how the hell can his character do it.. eh?.. eh??

Intelligence is not just about the ability to solve a problem, but the speed at which you do so. Doyle created/solved these problems at his leisure: Holmes solved them on the spot.

Mince - If a team of top scientists, sawed open the top of your head, removed your brain, then dissected it into twenty-three parts, each one stored on a separate plate before being sent to different research laboratories around the globe and scraped into respective bins, I'd be immensely satisfied!

See. That's exactly what Mince and TT111 are writing about. It probably took you ages to compose this message, yet it comes across as witty repartee.

[The Peepmaster]

Thank you, Vulture - I have to admit it took me about 2 minutes, but I'm brighter than I look. You also appreciated my comment on the good Dai Young thread, so I've decided you can be one of my fans 

[Vulture]

Oh. Thank you, kind sir. I've gone all of a dither. 

[peter]

I think we're arguing over the word "intelligent". To me, Doctor Who is more intelligent than the writer, Russell T Davies, because (as an example) Davies does not know how to travel in time.

If Davies did know how to travel in time, he could create a more believable time traveller (to the viewer), but it would still be the same Doctor Who character with the same intelligence. (Otherwise Doctor Who's intelligence would increase and decrease depending on who was writing the episode.)

Sorry Mince just because you travel on a train it does not make you a train driver but you do it. (Doc who)
It does not make you any more intelligent. It just makes you a passenger.
What Roger is saying is the the character can appear to be of a higher intelligent but he is still only as intelligent as the writer capacity
to write.

[Diane CBPFC]

If you don?t mind me straying off topic a bit ? we have a US TV show shown in Canada called House (I think the first season it was House MD) ? it is about a brilliant but cranky and drugged up doctor. There is a website that lists all the Homesian attributes of House. http://www.housemd-guide.com/holmesian.php

Do you get that TV show in Britain? It is one of my favourite shows.

[peter]

If you don?t mind me straying off topic a bit ? we have a US TV show shown in Canada called House (I think the first season it was House MD) ? it is about a brilliant but cranky and drugged up doctor. There is a website that lists all the Homesian attributes of House. http://www.housemd-guide.com/holmesian.php

Do you get that TV show in Britain? It is one of my favourite shows.

Sorry Diane we are on series 3 but I agree it is good

[Vulture]

I think we're arguing over the word "intelligent". To me, Doctor Who is more intelligent than the writer, Russell T Davies, because (as an example) Davies does not know how to travel in time.

If Davies did know how to travel in time, he could create a more believable time traveller (to the viewer), but it would still be the same Doctor Who character with the same intelligence. (Otherwise Doctor Who's intelligence would increase and decrease depending on who was writing the episode.)

Sorry Mince just because you travel on a train it does not make you a train driver but you do it. (Doc who)
It does not make you any more intelligent. It just makes you a passenger.
What Roger is saying is the the character can appear to be of a higher intelligent but he is still only as intelligent as the writer capacity
to write.

Sorry, Peter. I have to disagree with you.

Dick Francis, for example, knows all about horses; he writes books about horse racing, horse transportation, horse trainers, etc. He does not pilot his own plane, yet he has written several books where he (or the hero) is a pilot. Dick Francis obviously knows how to research. 

If Mince researched enough, he could write about being a train driver OR a passenger.

[peter]

Sorry, Peter. I have to disagree with you.

Dick Francis, for example, knows all about horses; he writes books about horse racing, horse transportation, horse trainers, etc. He does not pilot his own plane, yet he has written several books where he (or the hero) is a pilot. Dick Francis obviously knows how to research. 

If Mince researched enough, he could write about being a train driver OR a passenger.

I disagree.
I already said that but just because he has researched a subject it does not make him write any more intelligently. Or be able to pilot a plane.