How do I depict “stupid” characters credibly and respectfully? I found Oren’s 2015 article Four Questions to Ask When a Character Is Clever enlightening and would be interested in a similar exploration into the opposite side of the spectrum. Angela Ackerman’s article on how fear warps decision making was another valuable insight. Along the way, it would be nice to know what ableist pitfalls to avoid.
Raillery
Raillery,
Thanks for your question! This is an important topic.
The first thing to know is that the concept of “stupidity” or “low intelligence” is inaccurate, stigmatizing, ableist, and connected to a history of ableist and racist violence. It is a bunch of stereotypes about people with cognitive disabilities mashed together into a generic concept that has no actual grounding in disability or the things that cause non-disabled people to make bad choices. A starting point for more information on this is belenen’s article on slurs used against people with cognitive disabilities and the violent history and stigma connected to them.
While the generic concept of “stupidity” isn’t actually a real thing, disabilities are real. There are many different cognitive disabilities and a wide range of other disabilities that affect mental functioning. For example, many chronic illnesses can cause brain fog, which is an experience of unclear thinking and mental confusion that affects memory, focus, learning, and decision-making. It is called brain fog because “it can feel like this cloud on your head that reduces your ability to think clearly.”
Because each disability affects people differently, it is important to choose a specific disability (or disabilities) for each disabled character. Once a disability is chosen, keep getting more specific. Choose the specific symptoms that the character has and the way that this disability presents itself. Research the disability, learn about myths and stereotypes to avoid, and consult with someone who has lived experience. Real disability is specific, so respectful depictions need to be specific too.
One of the keys for respectfully depicting any disability that affects mental functioning is letting go of the idea that there is a single mental ability called “intelligence.” Instead, there is a wide range of different cognitive abilities that people can be strong in or struggle with, such as memory, communicating thoughts, understanding social cues, spatial reasoning, mental flexibility, imagination, focus, planning, logical reasoning, mathematical aptitude, and creative problem-solving. When researching the details of a character’s disability, think about the specific mental capacities it affects and how it affects them.
It is also possible to depict non-disabled characters who have frustrating behaviors or make bad decisions. The key here is that the frustrating things are behaviors and choices, not the lack of a certain type of mental capability. If a character significantly struggles with one or more cognitive abilities, that is a disability and it should be handled as such.
When showing the frustrating behaviors and choices of non-disabled characters, getting specific also helps. Anything generic will lean toward stigmatizing stereotypes. To avoid this, decide what specific behavior the character is doing that is causing problems. For example, are they willfully ignorant about something, being hypocritical, not taking safety protocols seriously, being overconfident, not thinking about the needs of others, or avoiding taking responsibility for their actions? Distance this frustrating behavior from disability by making it clear that the character is choosing, consciously or unconsciously, to do it.
Another option is to show how intense emotion, such as fear, or extreme circumstances can warp decision-making in non-disabled characters. It sounds like you have already found some good information on this, and there is plenty more out there. For this, it is important to make clear the cause and effect of how the intense emotion or circumstances alter decision-making. Although there is some gray area here, keep this focused on the character’s behavior, choices, and how the situation affects them, not the character’s cognitive abilities.
Finally, I want to emphasize that regardless of whether a character is disabled or not, being specific is key. Specificity makes it clear what is happening for the character and how they are making decisions. It also makes the character more relatable, either as someone the audience can identify with or someone with behaviors many audience members have personal experience being frustrated with.
I hope that this helps. Good luck with your storytelling project!
–Fay Onyx from Writing Alchemy
Keep the answer engine fueled by becoming a patron today. Want to ask something? Submit your question here.
Does it have to come down to a disability?
Can it not derive from a combination of certain character traits?
For example, there are people who believe the earth is flat, that it’s only about a thousand years old (I’m trying to find non-offending examples). They are vehemently ignoring all evidence and refuse to take part in a constructive discussion.
Wouldn’t this be more due to a collection of character traits, such as stubbornness, pride, naivity..?
You’re right, and the last few paragraphs address that too.
Someone might make shit decisions because they’ve always been privileged and coddled, while lead to believe that they’re awesome and great at making decisions and that’s what lead to their current level of success. Someone might even decide and do lots of stupid shit IN PART because they’ve got a high IQ as measured on IQ tests (plus general privilege), so now they’re all like “well since I, a very intelligent person, came up with this idea, it must be a great idea”.
This is very much a phenomenon that exists in the real world…
Yeah, this☝️!
Show them surrounded by yay-sayers who blow smoke up their posterior in order to curry favor.
Also, show them to be uncaring of any consequences, because they’ll be borne by people who are not them/not part of their group, whichever it might be.
I’d argue that this phenomenon has caused throughout history, and is continuing to cause, MANY or even MOST of humanity’s problems
This was supposed be a reply to Jeppsson!
One particular pitfall is using the cognitively disabled person as a source of humor
There is a rather large subsection of comedy and jokes based around this, usually “blonde”, “bimbo”, or ethnicities I need not discuss here
When I use this type of humor, I try to show an otherwise intelligent person, but w/ no common sense
Yeah, there’s a lot of sitcoms, for instance, in which a character isn’t said to be intellectually disabled, and it’s not like they’re depicted like a realistic intellectually disabled person either – but their level of comprehension is SOOOOO far below everyone else that it can still come across pretty… uh… uncomfortable.
Examples include Jason Mendoza in the Good Place, Andy in Parks and Rec, and Josh in Crazy Ex-Girlfriend. The two last ones weren’t as extreme when their shows began, but devolved into this kind of character when their shows had run for a couple of seasons.
So, while I get the idea, I do want to point out that “wildly exaggerated character traits, but only when it would be funny” are kind of a staple of sitcom comedy.– theyre exactly as silly and unaware as might be funny, but otherwise manage to mostly operate as normal adults.
And this applies to everyone in those shows– Chidi is so incredbly anxious he has breakdowns over what milk to buy— but only when it would be funny. In seious scnes hes still a nervous person, but to a more functional degree.
I disagree. Jason never ever comes across as a normal functioning adult. I’ve even seen people argue online that it’s a mystery why he’s in Hell, because he’s too intellectually disabled to understand the difference between right and wrong. Like, if more than one viewer reads your “bimbo” character that way, that’s a problem in the writing.
And someone like Andy went from stupid and unaware in situations where it would be funny, to ridiculously helpless pretty much all the time, to the point where I didn’t find him funny at all, I just felt sorry for April who basically ended up as a combined girlfriend caretaker.
I mean humour is pretty subjective so we can agree to disagree on which characters are funny. But I think it’s a common sitcom problem that someone starts out being occasionally stupid when it’s funny, and then just gets worse and worse, until it’s not funny to watch them anymore, just uncomfortable. With Jason, I did think he was quite often funny, but he started out too exaggerated even for an overall exaggerated show like the Good Place (once again YMMV, but IMO.)
No, that is a valid point
I suppose humor is different, as ive always been a fan of “The Fool” archetype, where a character is kindhearted, wildly lucky, and incredibly foolish, and basically sort of dwells on another plane of existance from everybody else, but no one ever really suffers because of it.*
i can see how it could rub someone tge wrong way tho, especially if they interpret the character more realistically rather than as a sort of “charmed force of nature”
*(granted, jason did die, but thats the premise of tge story. and it ended up alright in the end)
(also– missed this in the first one sorry– do they not realise its canon that SPOILERS everyone including babies ends up in hell? thats like, the main issue of the show?)
Not to bee hypersensitive, but I think “no common sense” can also be cognitive disability or neurodivergence. The executive dysfunction that I experience is often read by people as “intelligent but no common sense,” and it’s kinda frustrating because it’s not like I choose to be that way.
Related question, how would you go about portraying someone like Elmer Fudd? He’s foolish and dull. Is that what many people mean when they say “stupid?”
Thanks for you response! I feel very much enlightened.
Does this mean that the “stupidity” of monster species could be replaced with frustrating behaviors.
Something like, say:
As far as hill giant society is concerned, non-giant species are simply animals, no different from ants and bees in their ability to build houses, meaning they feel no more remorse from taking their food from humans as they feel from taking honey from bees. Humans have weapons, but so do bees have stings. No difference.
One thing I like about this is that it means giants are not inherently stupid or evil. It removes quite a bit of racist implications
Another thing I like is that there’s a potential for peace and coexistance, if humans convince giants that humans are sapient
Guess we’re on the right track, then.
Although, convincing hill giants of mankind’s sapience is easier said than done. During their quest for new culinary experiences, they have studied nature in all of its multitudes, and found nothing that differentiates man from beast. From governments to wearing clothes, some animal does it as well.
And “insanity” of course, could be replaced with altered mind.
The victims of the gibbering mouther, when combined to the mass, lose their identities, becoming just another extension of the aberration’s body and will.
Also, I did have a possible solution to the fomorians, but I’m not sure whether to tell it. It could be ableist in its own right.
Or might as well reveal it. Better to discover a fault than stay in the dark.
Fomorians, I’d imagine, could not be a species at all, but a pariah class. Exiles from physical perfection-obsessed giant societies. They hide their disabilities by wearing long robes and wrapping themselves in swathes of clothing. Fomorians tend to live in groups to increase their chances of survival.
Despite their tragic circumstances, smaller species have a hard time sympathizing with the fomorians. Mostly due to their habit of taking out their frustrations on “lesser creatures”.
What about going in the opposite direction, like making hill giants animals, like oversized chimpanzees?
If they’re animals like chimpanzees, you really should call them “giant apes” instead of “giants.” If you take anything associated with human groups in fantasy and then cast it as ape-like, it will come off racist. Because in the real world, racism is often expressed by comparing people to monkeys or apes. So your giant apes shouldn’t, for instance, be wearing clothes or doing anything else uniquely associated with humans. Though I’d make an exception if you have something like talking animals in your setting.
Then if they’re apes, it would be weird to emphasize how “stupid” they are. They’re apes; it’s a given that their mental abilities are ape-like.
I see what you mean
Might explain why the giants in Game of Thrones were changed from large yetis to human resembling species.
Mind you, while they were made smarter than their book counterparts, wearing clothes (or rather wrappings of all sorts) and wielding bows, they are still not as smart as humans. One of the giants, Wun Wun, can only speak a simplified version of the Old Tongue, though he’s still more capable than his book version, who was described as having the mind of a child.
Very well said! I have quite a few characters that can be considered foolish in some manner, and one thing I’m trying to navigate is… well, insults.
Writing banter is one of my favorites if I’m honest, but I definitely don’t want to reify any ableist ideas regarding the concept of “intelligence” by using words such as “stupid” or “moron” for the insults in question. But I also feel like just coming up with words to be used in the same context doesn’t really fix the problem?
Will I need to do some rethinking on how to write banter moving forward? Haha…
Luffy from One Piece is a good example.
He’s quite stupid in a lot of ways, but subtly smart in others.
So is Zoro, same series.