The Crippled Genius

American television has become increasingly fascinated by the crippled genius in the past decade. I conceived of this name while enjoying the famous uncanny doctor 'House' in American series, "House M.D". The title 'crippled genius' certainly sounds literal and perhaps, even shallow in this case, but I intend it as a representation of almost an entire genre of characters on American television.
House, for instance, is shown as a reckless genius, his brilliance is entirely attached with his risk taking abilities; his infamous mockery 'everybody lies' inaugurates an eight year long commentary on mankind's weakness revealing itself in social virtues such as pity and love. He is exceptionally incapable of maintaining any close relationships even though his professional abilities are fascinating to friends and enemies alike. He is shown as the ultimate exception, his most entertaining possession, his ability to criticize weakness and point out the usually ignored harm in irrational and negotiated love; and his human flaw, being unable to have a completely irrational and emotional contact with his fellows. The series also portrays his brilliance as a natural consequence of his tragedy, broken leg somewhere in season five. If he wants to continue being a doctor, he has to stay in pain. He is shown as a true oddity whose only friend 'Wilson' is reconsidering his decision of continuing this friendship with House by the end of every season. A true tragic hero, his greatness causes his demise as his bitterness and lack of ability to 'care' makes him distant and cold.
He is not alone in the standing modern derivatives of Greek tragedy, another American Television series; 'Burn Notice' creates the same theme, where by the end of fifth season, 'Michael Weston', the protagonist is a living brand of spy craft. Same M O follows minus insolence and malice; he is a loner, extremely talented, brilliantly driven and tragically trapped in circumstances beyond his control. Theme and story line of Burn Notice are certainly innovative but the root existence of protagonist is still very close to my 'crippled genius'. He has a lover who touches his soul but he has problems being tied down; his professional life is his complete life and expecting him to separate it from his personal life would be wishful thinking.
Neal Caffery in 'White Collar' also walks the same path; elusive, brilliantly handsome and kind, he is the perfect bad gentleman to fall in love with. He, yet again, carries the tag of 'smartest guy' in the room and has consistent problem with following the laws. His presence, predictably, makes Peter Burke juggles around with his moral compass and they become a team of players who break rules consistently to achieve acceptable results, a trend very much followed in both Burn Notice and House. Their friends unnecessarily endanger either their lives or their careers again and again to follow their unconventional and challenging to the system, styles of work. It gives them a sense of respect for themselves, as they do the right thing. Cuddy in House, Peter in White Collar and Jesse Porter in Burn Notice, all go through the same ethical and professional dilemmas where the only right thing is to allow protagonists to break the rules. Present American television is over flowing with similar scripts, other examples would include Nikita, Suits, Mad Men, etc, where professions and fates of main characters differ but their persona is eerily similar.
The question is; why am I calling such protagonists a 'crippled genius', why not a tragic hero? Because he is neither tragic and nor a hero; the conventional purpose of a tragic hero, to instill fear in masses through fascination, terribly fails in this case. He is revered, loved and subconsciously romanticized to the point of idolization; his only nobility being his talents. His only distinction is his craft, his gift and uncanny perfection in his profession. He is a genius that was his entry card into the world of idols and ideals. He is crippled and not tragic because Greek flaws were used to cause demise yet his flaws exalt him; they show his inner strength and give a superhuman touch to his identity, he is the modern superman. His struggle with his inner demons while he exudes greatness is his final allure. And as for his status of hero, heroes in conventional sense, sacrifice for the masses, whereas these individuals are completely self absorbed and live completely for themselves. Their loved ones are shown to sacrifice consistently in their love and loyalty but they still remain focused on their paths. Perhaps, this idea of a brilliant, handsome, talented, resourceful yet unfulfilled hero whose true destiny is a trial of the soul, began or at least rekindled with 'Fox Molder' from X-Files. Except, his rejection was due to his belief system and mainly a conspiracy theory but all these characters live in a limbo where their existence revolve around conflict and struggle, of course there is a commercial reason to it, but esthetically their development arouses curiosity about their roots.
Such characters reminds me of a short but famous essay written by Arthur Miller called 'Tragedy and Common Man"; as name suggests it discusses the tragedy that is experienced by common man and its essence. Fantastical face of the crippled genius, who, Arthur agrees, is derived from the essence of Greek tragedy, is essentially a version of Greek hero for modern society. The quality that shakes us and keeps us hooked up, according to Miller, would be displacing our perception of the world and our place in it. If one discards the outer covering of nobility, than the tragic hero is really just an exception to the general rule; he is just an eccentricity for masses, he reminds them of all they don't see every day. He is the man searching for his true place in society, a place he has either yet to find or have misplaced it and wants to regain, but he is always sought after his true position in society. His lack of belonging to the masses makes him an observant connector if you may; he tempers with sensitive laws in his agitation and creates perceptive hurricanes in the social system to serve his moral compass. His perceived destiny is to share with those who belong, what they cannot see; his unique path makes him the outcast whereas his pain makes him the messiah. His main cause for pursuing the path is usually indignation, as Miller says, and his anger acts as an anchor for his courage to topple an otherwise, corrupt but well run machine. His lack of place in it gives him the freedom to dissect and purge what was otherwise the norm. This overview of our modern hero was essential to outline how his purpose evolved through the eras. His existence that was once used to install fear of nature's wrath and fate's power is now used to show weakness of society as man tears down the idea of fate. Modern society is moving fast towards the idea that death is fate, everything else is human; these heroes fight furiously and unlike a Greek hero, never accepts demise as their ending. Unlike Oedipus, who gorged his eyes out, Michael brings down an entire shady organization to clear his name and Neal Caffery jumps off a Judge's chambers to save Kate, while House crashes into Cuddy's living room; because he could not see her with another man. The qualities that were perceived flaws of great men in old days are now the signature marks of modern man.
The tale is initiated by the hero himself, he sets in motion his own conquest, and this is the true allure of his tale. We are creatures of free will, we want to know consequences of our actions and take responsibility of our existence; vulnerability is admired only if occasional, we want to be masters of our own fates, as a rule. The exposure against a higher power and a struggle to overcome destiny holds a romantic charm; it's a test of greatness, while the mark of greatness still remains the power to beat one's fate. Miller also raised a brilliant point, if tragedy is a man's quest to search for himself then the hurdles in his way are evil and inherently wrong and pain that flourishes one's soul is the pain worth having. Although, commonly this approach seems masochistic, but easily around seven American television series would beg to differ.
This identity of pain as the thriving force reached its full circle in another American television series 'Leverage' which was released in 2009, this drama focuses on a team of outcasts lead by a traumatized master-mind. The mastermind is a father who saw his son die due to lack of treatment; similarly, all of these characters have a back story that hinders in their options of becoming an active part of the society. Yet again, they are all brilliant individuals, successful and bored; they decide to help the poor steal back what was wrongfully snatched by the rich and powerful. Series focuses on masterfully controlling and turning the situation in one's own favor.
Here, I would like to bring in an old piece of literature, The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. Some call it a philosophical work while others call it an abomination; it delivers, rather harshly, an idea that passion for work should be identity for the man. Idea is delivered through the main character Roark, who is brilliant, but he takes his work as a force of life and his intensity pushes society away from him. The reviews of the novel were certainly controversial and many including me have a love-hate relationship with this work, however one cannot help but notice that these characters exceptionally resemble Roark's basic outline. Roark was known for his intrinsic inflexibility in adopting with the society; these characters cannot adopt into the society either, they somehow take pride in this notion. Their friends consistently remind them that they should mingle more, socialize but they seem to ignore the advice. Their romantic interests always realize that they cannot be fully functional if ever separated from their profession, so they accommodate hero's passion and allow this outline to define their lives. Our genius is consistently criticized or even destroyed by the powerful in society who claim that his lack of flexibility is an insult to masses and he should not be encouraged to continue his behavior. Most of all, the idea presented in the novel that a man can best serve the world by serving himself, when he seeks his true vocation, he gives society what no compromise can provide, true brilliance; this idea is most certainly followed by our man who serves people by serving himself. His passion for his profession whether its spy craft or medical curiosity or legislative wars; a man serves society best while he is serving himself.
As Miller suggests, in a tragic view, the only task a man has is to wholly realize himself and reach his full potential that is the reason our crippled genius cannot walk away; that is the reason Howard Roark could not walk away as he was the true tragic hero, except the tale was about journey and not the end. But the difference starts with the 'crippled' aspect of the personality of our genius. His lack of ability to mingle with masses, his obsession with his career, these are portrayed on popular television as a mistake. House loses all his loved ones to his weaknesses is left alone in the end. Many of these series have yet to conclude but all of these protagonists pay for their lack of submission; Weston has been on verge of losing Fiona more than once due to his lack of interest in commitment and Neal is struggling to keep u with Peter all the time. No writer ever reaches a conclusion where his aloofness is not shown as 'crippling', he has to be condemned for his weakness; he either conforms or he has to be exiled despite his greatness.
The personality of Howard Roark and all that it represents have been under thorough scrutiny over the years; it would be unfair not to remember the scrutiny any philosophy of a tragic hero has endured over time. But the fascination one feels towards House or any other popular television program is undeniable; so is the obsession many of us endured in our teenage with the character of Howard Roark. Presentation of an idea, any idea, is essential to its reception and Roark was indeed presented severely, yet perhaps it's time we accept that professional passion and uncanny brilliance should not have to be exclusive of family comfort and societal acceptance. Perhaps society is unconsciously moving towards a time where we will be more tolerant of 'brilliance'.