Isn’t Wilson at least partly Jewish? That could “explain” his brilliance.
Of course, he’s not as brilliant as the fucked-up House, or as soullessly dedicated as the unambiguously Jewish Cuddy.
Are people joking with the Jewish thing? I’m afraid I am missing the humor. As an observation is seems pretty crappy.
Also genius and brilliant are not the same thing are they? I don’t think anything indicates that Watson or Wilson are genius whereas Holmes and House are clearly depicted as such.
What about Spencer Reid on “Criminal Minds?” He has a mentally ill mother, he was bullied to the point of mental torture as a kid, and was kidnapped, forcibly addicted to drugs and almost murdered, but he deals with it all reasonably well.
Can’t believe I didn’t thnk of Reid. And Penolope Garcia is a computer genius, yet normal for all her quirkiness. Ditto Abby on NCIS, and possibly Ducky (not the quirkiness but he seems to be brilliant, if not a genius).
A good but relatively obscure movie that came out a while back, Charlie Bartlett, features a teenage boy who is kind of like a genius Ferris Bueller. While he obviously isn’t free of faults and tends to irritate authority figures, he’s not a particularly tortured or dysfunctional person - which is partly the point of the film. He wants to become popular, so he begins treating the mental health problems of his peers by lying to his psychiatrist in order to get medication. Sure, he’s doing it because he wants to become popular, but it’s clear early on that the reason he wants to be popular is that he genuinely loves people. The film is about him learning the limits of his own genius. From what I recall, he is celebrated as a people’s advocate without the need to portray him as ‘‘damaged.’’
See YouTube trailer, judge for self.
I actually think this is a pretty good film.
yet Superman would be a good example of what the OP asked for - someone whose behaviour is otherwise normal and not odd in any way. i don’t think having a loophole to his invulnerability counts as being ‘damaged’.
except, of course, that he being an alien and all would make him different (though not visibly so) from the rest of us.
As the “people” who started that line of talk, I’ll speak up.
No, I didn’t intend any humor. It’s a widely held stereotype, a largely positive one (both reasons entertainment embraces it), and one that happens to have more than the usual kernel of truth to it. Jewish culture really does enshrine the intellect. No doubt for that reason - and who knows, maybe others - it really is known to have produced a disproportionate number of really, really smart people.
So basically, I’m not seeing the crappiness here, unless you’re reading in some common prejudice I don’t mean to endorse.
Tony Stark? At least in the first Iron Man movie, I still haven’t seen the second. He’s hedonistic and self-centered, but I don’t see damage. Later he needs the artificial heart and all of that stuff, but he was brilliant before that.
There is also the issue of being to good to like. Outside of children’s fiction or one dimensional pulp fiction, having a perfect protagonist is off putting. But many stories call for extraordinary abilities in the lead. So, it make the person likable and relatable, they can either only excel at one thing, or have a compensating weakness. A character with no flaws needs no arc and makes viewers feel bad. We like House because he is a genius, and we may envy his insight, but we don’t want his life.
I’ve seen a few episodes of Psych…that guy is supposed to be a Sherlockian-style genius when it comes to observation right?
IIRC he has some daddy issues but no more than Leonard’s (Big Bang Theory) mommy issues.
He’s definitely damaged in the second, but I think you’re right about the first.
It seems like the idea of a genius having quirks or damage is born of an irrational desire for fairness. People seem to feel that it’s unfair for a person to have these above average abilities and not have drawbacks to compensate for them. It’s the same thinking that results in the “beautiful but dim” stereotype. The reverse is that a damaged, ugly, or otherwise undesirable person is portrayed as having intelligence, talent or other positive quality.
Almost forgot the ultimate flawless genius, Buckaroo Bonzai, theoretical physicist, neurosurgeon, rock and roll star, admired by men, and wanted by women. And also, kind of boring as a character.
The deuce you say!
So that makes at least TWO of us that recall that movie! Anyone else?
Tony’s an asshole, and quite stupid when it comes to worthwhile women, in both comics and movies. I wouldn’t call him any more damaged than Green Arrow. Any damage in the second, I think, is due to the continuing trauma he’s undergoing. I honestly see him as mostly marking time before death for most of the movie.
Wesley Crusher is unquestionably a genius, but no matter how annoying he is, you can’t really call him damaged. The nearest he comes is grieving over his father, which just makes him human.
I thought about mentioning the various Vulcans on the various Treks, but their culture is sufficiently different from Terran that it’s hard to say. I think T’Pol in general would bristle at
Several characters on NCIS have called Abby Scuito a genius, and despite her eccentricities she seems pretty healthy. At most she’s a bit immature.
Willow Rosenberg of BUFFY isn’t terribly damaged; she was just shy as a teenager, and, of course, evil when you got right down to it. 
Fred Burkle from ANGEL was clearly nuts when she was brought back from Pylea, and I don’t think she ever came all the way back. But it was the Pylean experience that did it to her, not her great big brain.
I don’t think I saw him posted, but one could say the Professor on Gilligan’s Island was a genius and not damaged. One could also say he was not a genius, as he couldn’t get them off the island.
Good one. Keeping them alive, with Gilligan around, was good enough for me. Now, if he wasn’t shtupping both Ginger and Maryanne at night, then I might call him damaged.
That was not the Professor’s fault. Allah wanted them on that island, and Gilligan was his instrument.
Sean’s father was a cop and raised and trained him to be a police detective, and succeeded in making him a brilliant one. He does not really have a strained relationship with his father, no more than any other son; his fix is that he’s too free-spirited and whimsical (or, more harshly, persistently immature) to live like a cop; so he does the same work as an independent contractor, perfectly well, on fraudulent premises. But, damaged, no.
Nobel-prize winner Nathan Stark from Eureka. (Another Stark! It’s understood this character was intended as somewhat of a tribute to Tony.)
Henry could also be said to be undamaged, at least at this point.
Of course, the whole point of the show is that pretty much the entire cast are geniuses. There are plenty of examples of the ‘damaged’ variety - the neurotic Fargo, the semi-criminal hacker scientist Zane, Allison’s autistic savant son Kevin - but there are plenty of ‘normal’ geniuses in the show, too.
BTW, new season starts tonight, and fantastic things are supposedly in store…