What's the oppinion on having a prodigy that intantaneously 'gets' it, and then subsequently does not comprehend how the class mates don't see it as simply. Lets say you start from the very beginning of the learning and treat it sort of like Maths.

2+3 = 5. "Yep"
2x3 = 6. "Yep"
2a = 6, so a = 3. "Ah, ok."

"Why are you people so bad at this? It's simple."

Although it would be a bit more fleshed out, but no harm in using the bare bones for the description of a concept.

 

The character sounds like a dick.

 

Make him a bit modest about it and you've got a decent character right there. Have him help out with some of the other students (Neville is a perfect option for this), show him being sociable and you've got a well rounded, charismatic prodigy. In other words, Tom Riddle Redux.

 

This is how I generally handle prodigies. It's also why almost all of my prodigies are god awful teachers. They picked up their knowledge right off the bat, usually just from an example, and don't know how to make it any simpler for their students.

Could be an interesting dynamic to add on to Aekiel's suggestion. He's a good guy and wants to help out, but at the same time doesn't know to break through the learning barrier between himself and his peers.

 

Or write it so he still screws up a lot, and Voldemort is still better. Make Harry lose the first conflict by underestimating his opponents, and then make him lose again when he overestimates his peers' abilities. Outside of story structure considerations, make him blow off Transfiguration to work on an advanced Charms research project. Have Hermione try to keep him on task, but get sucked into wanting to help. And whatever you do, don't make him better than her at everything. Being a prodigy doesn't mean winning at everything all the time.

Now if the story is long enough, you might show some of how Harry got to where he is, but it's not strictly necessary. I'd rather read a good story that is complete after 60k words than an abandoned, 100k word work-in-progress.

 

I dunno, man, I'm pretty sure Dumbledore won at everything in school.

 

Good clarification. Yes, prodigy has to be early and fast to a high degree, not just early and fast.

However, I don't really like your next definition:

Using IQ as a sole determinate of genius is problematic. IQ testing, even the modern tests that take into account spatial knowledge, reasoning, and other categories of intelligence fail to account for musical, artistic, and creative genius. IQ is a fair measure of specific types of intelligence/knowledge, but very limited in scope.

Sure, having an IQ of 140 on the Stanford Binet (or 180 for true genius) shows an ability level with intelligence that is well above average, and for some considerations that definition is sufficient. But for writing about genius in fanfiction, I don't think that really does the term justice at all.

Musical genius, tactical genius, creative genius, physical genius, none of these are at all related to IQ. And even within academia, genius is not simply being able comprehend advanced knowledge and concepts that lesser minds (in the field) have difficulty with--it's in taking that knowledge and providing greater insight and perception that real genius is known.

But I do find that Spearman's breaking G into g (general) and s (specific) to be really illuminating on the topic of showing genius in fanfiction. Showing a person's general, consistent level of genius in comparison to others is one thing--something I think has been discussed already. But, it's the specific, variable performance of intelligence in different scenarios where fanfic writers can really demonstrate that flash of perception which illuminates the brilliance of the character for the reader.

Card did this by illustrating Ender's innovations in null-gravity. Tony Stark's genius is illustrated not just by his having awesome toys (which shows his g), but by going all A-Team on the 10 Rings instead of handing them what they want. Will in Good Will Hunting shows his genius not just by solving complex math and knowing books by heart, but by turning psycho-analysis on those trying to analyze him Sherlock Holmes style.

What I think we can take from this is that a real genius needs to be portrayed not just with how they perform in academic situations, but how they apply that knowledge in a clever way that the reader can recognize as being brilliant in specific situations.

He never writes children. Just geniuses that haven't reached physical maturity. I really enjoy Card, but he's not the person to emulate in trying to write young children. Unfortunately, I think most fanfics I've read that show any kind of young Harry have more in common in Card than they do with Dr. Seuss.

 

When you were listing the other types of geniuses, I immediately thought of geniuses of hard work. I was then forced to read the rest of your post through the voice of Rock Lee. You asshole.

 

Does not wanting anything to do with it in the first place count as failing? Even having said that, I doubt Albus would have had any problems, considering how easy it usually is for gay men to make plenty of female friends who will treat them like the second coming of fabulous.

 

Answering the OP question with an example from our Library, I think Big D's Harry portrays exactly what I would like to read in a prodigy!Harry/intelligent!Harry. Big D went the other way, if I remember correctly; making Harry above average in account of "magical power", but as intelligent as Dumbledore, creating a character who utilizes his brain more than his magic prowess.

I regard him as a prodigy, based on what Pers posted above,

Considering Harry could make Felix Felicis when he was 13.

 

Be grateful I didn't bring up Maito Guy and the Springtime of Youth.

 

Make them learn fast. Let them make mistakes, but each only once. They should be driven and want to learn/accomplish something. The lazy genius type doesn't really work as a main character.

What I and, presumably, everyone else hates is when all other characters obsess over him. All girls love him and want to bring him out of his prodigous academic shell, his peers and teachers either admire him way to much or are jealous to the point of hatred.
I had an "I know everything about all science up to third year college" boy in my highschool year and while everyone knew (of) him, he sure wasn't the center of the universe. But he was totally overworked with competitions.

An example in literature could be Kvothe from "The Name of the Wind". He's a genius of everything, but he still struggles with political enemies, money, love ...
He learns fast, especially in his main subjects, but he doesn't overtake his teachers.
He isn't better then his peers in subjects he doesn't even take.
With all his political savyness and luck, he barely gets on the earls good side and has to leave the one time he loses his patience.

A large part of that might simple be good writing, but it's still a good lesson:
Even the genius at everything isn't actually god at everything.

 

Kvothe?

You dislike the idea of all the other characters obsessing over and/or falling in love with the prodigy and use the example of Kvothe? The one who only has setbacks to show how amazing he is and who by the end of the second book is basically the best in the world at magic, fighting and sex?

I'm quoting someone else's review here, but here's a summary of part of the book:

I'm going on about this because it is as bad as the worst harem fics in fanfiction. Patrick Rothfuss should publicly apologise for this bullshit and noone should ever use Kvothe as a good example for character development.

...

So, um, yeah, prodigies.

It really depends on how you want the audience to view the character. You'd write them differently depending on whether the character needs to be accessible, friendly, cold, arrogant or what.

As a sympathetic character you probably want them to be instinctively grasping the root ideas and be able to use the tools from the principles, but be unable to explain how to understand the rules from other viewpoints. They'd probably be really frustrated with themselves for not being able to explain themselves. They may try multiple explanations for the same thing, each of which makes a huge leap in deduction and confuses the person they are explaining it to.

Although be careful it doesn't end up as multiple sermons on how most people are idiots, or how the world should really be like X.

 

Of course Kvothe was amazing in bed. You're always amazing in bed during your dreams, and he wasn't in the real world, but rather a dream world where you can pick up beams of sunlight and make cloaks out of shadows.