writing unintelligent characters

Characters, Story Scholar

Having studied some techniques for writing intelligent characters, it seems only right that we should turn our attention to their less popular counterparts: unintelligent characters.

“Intelligent” and “unintelligent” are descriptive expediencies. “Unintelligent” characters in particular are often used for comedic effect, but can be developed into more rounded figures if given a character arc or strengths in other (non-intellectual) areas.

In this article I’ll draw examples from the character of Reginald Montague in Many Dimensions by Charles Williams.

☞ This article includes spoilers.

How to Make Characters Appear Unintelligent

1. They defer to intelligent characters

“They are the letters of the Tetragrammaton,” the Persian said drily, “if you call that important. But they are not engraved on the Stone; they are in the centre—they are, in fact, the Stone.”
“O!” Mr. Montague said vaguely, and looked at his uncle Sir Giles, who said nothing at all. This, after a few minutes, seemed to compel Montague to a fresh attempt.

One of the chief reasons you may want to write unintelligent characters is to make other characters appear more intelligent by contrast.

Reginald Montague’s non-answer, followed by his glance at his uncle for explanation, show not only that he doesn’t understand the Persian’s remark, and likely doesn’t know what the ‘Tetragrammaton’ is, but also that he expects his uncle does know.

What do they have difficulty understanding?
Who do they turn to for answers or explanations?

2. They have difficulty processing

“Wouldn’t you like to go forward to the time when you’ve got your millions?”
Reginald gaped at him. “But… I shouldn’t have them,” he began slowly, “unless… eh? O if I’m going to… then I should be able to jump to when… but… I don’t see how I could get at them unless I knew what account they were in. I shouldn’t be that me, should I… or should I?”
As his brain gave way, Sir Giles grinned. “No,” he said almost cheerfully, “you’d have the money but with your present mind.”

The descriptions of Reginald gaping, and “his brain [giving] way” along with his slow speech and frequent pauses show how he struggles to grasp the complex abstract idea of time travel — in contrast to the villainously clever Sir Giles Tumulty whose response and cruel witticism is given without hesitation.

‘O my dear God in heaven!’ Lord Arglay said. ‘No … O yes, keep it quiet now…. Who is Angus M. Sheldrake?… yes, who? Who? I don’t know his name…. Oh. Can we get at him?… No, I don’t think you’d better; perhaps I will…. Good-bye.’

This one-sided telephone conversation is genius in the simple way it conveys Lord Arglay’s frustration with Reginald’s slow understanding, through exclamations and repeated questions.

How do they think through a problem?
How is their thinking slow, laboured, and inaccurate?
How do they doubt their own thought process or the conclusion they reach?

3. They have difficulty explaining

“O I don’t think dangerous,” Montague answered. “Unusual perhaps, but not dangerous. When he came back from Baghdad this time he brought with him a funny kind of a thing, something… well, something like a crown and something… something…”
“Something not,” said Lord Arglay. “Quite. Well?”
‘Made of gold,’ Reginald went on, ‘with a stone—that size … in the middle. Well, so he asked me over to help him experiment, and there was a man from the Persian Embassy there too, who said it was what Sir Giles thought it was—at least, he’d bought it as being—but that doesn’t matter. Well now, this thing—I know you won’t believe it—it sounds so silly; only you know I did it. Not Sir Giles—he said he wanted to observe, but I did. The Persian fellow was rather upset about it, at least not upset, but a bit high in the air, you know. Rather frosty. But I’m bound to say he met us quite fairly, said he was perfectly willing to admit that we had it, and to make it clear to us what it was; only he must have it back. But that would have been too silly.’

Reginald’s difficulty in describing the sacred object, as well as his disjointed summary of the earlier meeting would have been signs of his lack of intellect on their own, but the interjection of an intelligent character makes the effect even more distinct. Lord Arglay’s “something not” is an amusing remark on the surface, demonstrating his perception of Reginald’s character, but on a deeper level it shows a subtle ability to comprehend abstractions and the sense to avoid trying to describe something ineffable.

What are they struggling to describe?
Who are they trying to communicate with?
Who is frustrated by their incoherence?
Who supplies them with missing words or ideas?

4. They’re oblivious to criticism of themselves

As Mr. Montague paused for a moment Lord Arglay looked at Chloe. “It’s a fact I’ve continually observed in the witness box,” he said abstractedly, “that nine people out of ten, off their own subject, are incapable of lucidity, whereas on their own subject they can be as direct as a straight line before Einstein. I had a fellow once who couldn’t put three words together sanely; we were all hopeless, till counsel got him on his own business—which happened to be statistics of the development of industry in the Central American Republics; and then for about five minutes I understood exactly what had been happening there for the last seventy years. Curious. You and I are either silent or lucid. Yes, Reginald? Never mind me, I’ve often been meaning to tell Miss Burnett that, and it just came into my mind. Yes?”
“O he was lucid enough,” Reginald said. “Well it seems this thing was supposed to be the crown of King Suleiman, but of course as to that I can’t say. But I can tell you this.” He pointed a fork at the Chief Justice. “I put that thing on my head—” Chloe gave a small gasp—”and I willed myself to be back in my rooms in Rowland Street, and there I was.” He stopped.

Here Lord Arglay is sharing an anecdote that his secretary, Chloe, understands is meant as an aside on Reginald’s earlier incoherence, but which Reginald insensibly attributes to another character.

RELATED: writing subtext in dialogue

Lord Arglay’s repeated “Yes, Reginald?” and “Yes?” also provide a neat impression of Reginald’s impatience to speak, though he lacks insight into his own words and actions.

Who criticises them?
Who else understands the criticism and realises that the character is themselves oblivious?

5. Their thoughts lack depth and understanding

‘But the point is this.’ Confirming the Chief Justice’s previous dictum he became suddenly lucid. ‘The Persian man told us that small fractions taken from the Stone—it’s the Stone in the Crown that does it—have the same power. Now, if that’s so, we can have circlets made—with a chip in each, and just think what any man with money would give to have a thing like that. Think of a fellow in Throgmorton Street being able to be in Wall Street in two seconds! Think of Foreign Secretaries! Think of the Secret Service! Think of war! Every Government will need them. And we have the monopoly. It means a colossal fortune—colossal. O uncle, you must come in. I want a thousand: I can get six hundred or so quietly—not a word must leak out or I could do more, of course. Give me five hundred and I’ll get you fifty thousand times five hundred back.’

Reginald’s limited intelligence causes him to view a precious religious relic — the Stone of Suleiman — single-mindedly, from a commercial perspective. He’s “appalled by the stupendous vision” of wealth that he can gain from replicating and selling the Stone, in contrast to the characters of Lord Arglay and his secretary who recognise the spiritual power that the object possesses.

How is their thinking narrow, single-minded, and lacking in insight?
What do they fail to perceive in their surroundings or in other people?

6. They talk down to people

“Sounds awfully funny, doesn’t it, Miss Burnett?” Mr. Montague asked, coming carefully down to her level.

Since unintelligent characters are often secondary characters, their lack of intellect tends to be coupled with other unflattering personality traits, such as greed, intractability, and conceited condescension or disdain towards others.

Who do they look down on?
How does their disdain only emphasise their intellectual shortcoming?

7. Other characters judge them

compared with Lord Arglay’s learning and amused observation, she knew him to be trivial and greedy.

Other characters’ remarks or thoughts about the unintelligent character can be another useful tool for contrast, making surrounding characters appear astute and (potentially) forbearing while informing the reader through simple “telling”.

After a moment’s silence Arglay said, ‘I am sorry for Reginald. He was a fool but he wasn’t malevolent….

Who recognises them as being unintelligent?
Which other character shares the judgement?

8. They ignore counsel

‘I do not know,’ the Persian said gravely. ‘Since the time of Suleiman (may the Peace be upon him!) no one has sought to make profit from it.’
‘Ha!’ said Mr. Montague, surprised. ‘O come now, Prince!’
‘Or if they have,’ the Prince went on, ‘they and their names and all that they did have utterly perished from the earth.’
‘Ha!’ said Mr. Montague again, a little blankly. ‘O well, we can see.’

Wiser characters warn Reginald about using the Stone of Suleiman for profit, but he’s too overcome with greed to realise the danger he’s in, and with fatal consequences. The clearer the threat appears to other characters and to the reader, the more foolhardy and unintelligent the character seems to be.