Renaissance Men and Women in Fiction

[Ego]

I'm reading Bryce Courtenay's 'The Power of One' and very much enjoying how Peekay develops into a renaissance man. Motivated by Jacob's INTJ-in-fiction post, I thought I'd ask the group for their suggestions of renaissance men/women in fiction. We haven't done this already, have we?

[jacob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competent_man

[jennypenny]

I'm amazed at all of the women on that list.

[Dragline]

Well, it IS fiction we are talking about, jp.

[jennypenny]

Haha, so true. And women like to keep their super powers under wraps.

I can think of several female fictional characters that fit the bill, but they're all from Romance novels (unless you count Ripley). Romance, particularly PNR, is full of them. So is post-apocalyptic fiction.

How are we defining renaissance man/woman these days? Is it an adaptable, badass type like Ripley? Is it the stereotypical intelligent polymath? Is it someone more like Proenneke? Or someone with a more modern, eclectic skillset?

[Chad]

How are we defining renaissance man/woman these days? Is it an adaptable, badass type like Ripley? Is it the stereotypical intelligent polymath? Is it someone more like Proenneke? Or someone with a more modern, eclectic skillset?

This was my first thought when I read this thread. I'm not sure of the definition the ERE community would use. I know my definition, but a lot of people on here would default to people like Proenneke. Does he really have a broad skillset? Would he thrive in NYC or San Fran? Maybe his only skills would be specialized for rural Alaskan living...maybe not.

[jacob]

@jp -

None of the above. "We" define it like this. Also see chapter 5, I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath

Complexity:

A polymath (Greek: πολυμαθής, polymathēs, "having learned much")[1] is a person whose expertise spans a significant number of different subject areas; such a person is known to draw on complex bodies of knowledge to solve specific problems.

Intent:

This was expressed in the term "Renaissance man" which is often applied to the gifted people of that age who sought to develop their abilities in all areas of accomplishment: intellectual, artistic, social and physical.

Breadth:

This Renaissance ideal differed slightly from the polymath in that it involved more than just intellectual advancement. Historically (roughly 1450–1600) it represented a person who endeavored to "develop his capacities as fully as possible" (Britannica, "Renaissance Man") both mentally and physically.

Capability:

When someone is called a "Renaissance man" or "Renaissance woman" today, it is meant that, rather than simply having broad interests or superficial knowledge in several fields, he or she possesses a more profound knowledge and a proficiency, or even an expertise, in at least some of those fields.

I think all four need to be present. There need to be some proficiencies to draw on. These proficiencies need to cover enough "proficiency space" so as to be able to solve many different problems. There needs to be an ability to extract/generate solutions that simultaneously draw from more than one of these proficiencies so that the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts (this is why ERE is so much more efficient than the list-thinking people). There should be some intent to expand this "web".

PS: "Universal person" was actually on the list at some point during the writing/editing process but I figured that the term was not as familiar.

[Ego]

( unless you count Ripley)
'
How are we defining renaissance man/woman these days? Is it an adaptable, badass type like Ripley? Is it the stereotypical intelligent polymath? Is it someone more like Proenneke? Or someone with a more modern, eclectic skillset?

I had to google ripley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Ripley

How about an atypical set of experiences, skills, strengths, knowledge....whatever.... that when combined make an otherwise average person exceptional in a particular environment.

Peekay's abilities would be almost useless in Saudi Arabia. It is not their acquisition that makes them useful, it is their implementation. I enjoy reading stories about clever implementation of unusual skills.

[jacob]

How about an atypical set of experiences, skills, strengths, knowledge....whatever.... that when combined make an otherwise average person exceptional in a particular environment.

Hmmm... that is almost the complete opposite of the Renaissance ideal

1) Take the typical set of experiences/skills for a given environment (e.g. 21st century)
2) But make it goal that the person should have/gain ALL these experiences instead of just one or two. No mono-specialization or dual-specialization.
3) Combine these to make the person exceptional in the average environment.

That was the original plan/ideal. So the goal is to make an exceptionally capable human in a normal environment, that is, normal for that person---for example, I think my normal is quite different from your normal---not to have a set of weird skills come together to fight an alien footfall.

[Ego]

By gaining ALL of the TYPICAL skills/experiences of our time wouldn't I become the ultimate well-adjusted individual? Well adjusted to a sick society, yadda yadda yadda.

Atypical skills/experiences that will be useful no matter what happens in the future (ERE could be an example) seem more renaissancian than typical skills, no?

[GandK]

Jay Gatsby, maybe? Lisbeth Salander? Robert Langdon? Morgaine from The Mists of Avalon? Katniss Everdeen? Indiana Jones?

This is kind of hard in fiction. Part of storytelling is documenting personal change. A main character, in particular, would probably not start out being a Renaissance Man. He would likely grow in that direction as the story progressed.

In fact, now that I think about it, looking at mentor characters makes this easier to answer. What about Obi-Wan Kenobi? Or Mrs. Which? Gandalf and Aragorn? Dumbledore?

[jennypenny]

I had to google ripley

Haha, sorry Ego, I've worshipped Ripley since the 7th grade and forget that not everyone knows her character by name.


K's onto something. Fictional characters are usually deeply flawed in some way; that's what makes them interesting. Even the protagonists that come close to the renaissance ideal are usually plagued by their own form of kryptonite, or appear so detached from humanity that the author is forced to saddle them with a sidekick to function as such (like Dr. Watson).

If we're going to use jacob's definition ( ), then Mary Russell might come closest for women.

[GandK]

Wow, just read the Competent Man list above. LOLed at MacGuyver... haven't thought about that show in years. Yeah, he's probably a great example.

@jp: Have you read Patricia Cornwell's Kay Scarpetta novels? I think Kay Scarpetta would fit jacob's definition really well, too.

[jacob]

@Ego - The choice of [all-typical] would lead to the ultimate well-adjusted individual who can deal well with everything/every challenge/problem that comes along. This is was also the point of the original renaissance man even though the focus here was on court life which was hardly a healthy environment.

The difference is the renaissance man seeks to deal with the environment he lives in by being skilled in all its aspects (the warrior poet scientist). Whereas a specialist seeks to deal with the environment he lives in by being more skilled [than most others] in just one of its aspects to the detriment of all other aspects (the poet who can't fight or add numbers).

Normally we divide people into specialists (deep) and generalists (broad). A renaissance man is however both a generalist and a specialist (broad but also some deep peaks) thanks to additional experience/education and focus. Most people stop learning [much of anything additional] when they reach their early twenties. A renaissance man never stops. Unlike the generalist, the RM is not a superficial dabbler who simply organizes or brings specialists together. Unlike the specialist, the RM is not as ignorant as the average man when it comes to matters outside his own subject matter expertise.

This is what distinguishes the RM from generalists (the meta-skill of connecting) and specialists (the meta-skill of depth). It creates a third kind of meta-skill: The ability to connect deep knowledge from different subject areas that specialists can't do (because they only have access to one) and generalists can't do (because they can't go deep).

Here's a real life example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Battista_Alberti (focus especially on Publications to see how he drew connections)

Being a RM does not come down to the choice of skills or experiences. The environment (expected or realized) determines what the optimal choices are. So given those, being a RM means having a deep and broad knowledge of ALL (or at least most) of them.

[Ego]

That makes sense.

I guess what I am looking for is fiction (or non-fiction) that shows the development of a renaissance man. They are usually presented fully formed with no explanation as to how they learned to fix a diesel, speak Zulu, dance the Lambada (the forbidden dance) and set a bone.

Jenny, Beekeeper's Apprentice is now on my list to read.

[Spartan_Warrior]

Kvothe from the Name of the Wind fantasy series comes to mind. Indeed, the character has been criticized as being a "Mary Sue/Gary Stu" because he is so good at everything he does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

Notably, that article is linked from the bottom of the Wikipedia list of "Competent Men". In fact, I almost replied sardonically to Jenny's lament on the number of women in the list with "See also: Mary Sue". It's true that authors have to tread a fine line between "Competent Man" and "Mary Sue"; making a character who is too skilled or too knowledgeable in too many areas tends to 1) create unrealistic, uninteresting, or unrelatable characters and/or 2) alienate readers who will see the character as pure wish-fulfillment/author insert (I honestly had this complaint about Jubal Harshaw).

That said, I suspect "Competent Women" in particular get lumped into the Mary Sue category, rightly or wrongly, more often than male characters.

[jennypenny]

A graphic novel contender ... Ada Lovelace from The Thrilling Adventures of Lovelace and Babbage: The (Mostly) True Story of the First Computer

The author's blog ... http://sydneypadua.com/2dgoggles/

A sample ...




If you want to see more, look here for other comics with them. I like Lovelace & Babbage vs. The Economic Model.

[enigmaT120]

Math vs. poetry? It reminded me of this poem:

Beauty


Lobachevsky alone has looked on Beauty bare.
She curves in here, she curves in here.
She curves out there.

Her parallel clefts come together to tease
In un-callipygianous-wise;
With fewer than one hundred eighty degrees
Her glorious triangle lies.

Her double-trumpet symmetry Riemann did not court-
His tastes to simpler-curvedness, the buxom Teuton sort!
An ellipse is fine for as far as it goes,
But modesty, away!
If I'm going to see Beauty without her clothes
Give me hyperbolas any old day.

The world is curves, I've heard it said,
And straightway in it nothing lies.
This then my wish, before I'm dead:
To look through Lobachevsky's eyes.


(Roger Zelazny, Doorways in the Sand)

Sometimes in my enjoyment of twisty/curvy roads on my motorcycles, I compose imitations of that poem. But safely.