At 04:53 PM 08/04/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>We don't know who invented certain essential and
highly
>nontrivial things, but if we did, we would probably
call
>the inventor a genius.
Exactly. And your qualifier is relevant too. A person who
exhibits the same behaviour as a "genius" to develop
non-essential or trivial ideas is not considered a genius.
Application of the label is dependent upon acceptance of the
things or ideas invented. Genius is more an indication of
approval than a measure of intellect. This is why many
geniuses are first considered mad. Their ideas or behaviours
don't change. It is the acceptance of those ideas and
behaviours that changes (or acceptance of the ideas and a
resulting tolerance of the behaviours.)
>But you are right in that the label is not the thing,
and
>the label is given by each of us and says something
about
>us, not about the referent. There is nothing
that
>intrinsically begs to be called a genius. There is
nothing
>that intrinsically begs to be called anything.
Language is
>language, easily abused (by which I mean that the
facts are
>far from the meaning given to the words).
The label is the thing. The application of the label genius
is neither accidental nor an abuse of the language. It is
quite deliberate. The word is only used as an indication of
approval, and to rank the recipient among colleagues. It
means that person is smarter than most others. Even the
"evil genius" creates something that is valued by others. In
that case, it is the use of the creation that is called into
question.
>Best, and I'd better think of something hardboiled to
say
>before... Ah, Kafka is noir. And El Greco was a
noir
>painter. And Beethoven's Grosse Fuge is
quintessentially
>hardboiled.
Well sure, you think I'm going to argue that geniuses write
noir and hardboil? But I think the original question was
whether there are genius protagonists in noir or hardboil.
And I'm inclined to think not, because this validation of the
protagonist calls into question the nature of his struggle,
which we suggested long, long ago, is to challenge
traditional values. Remember- the lone-wolf detective who
sought his own values after seeing the collapse of
collective, institutional values under the crush of twentieth
century technological warfare? Smack me if I'm wrong, but
calling the protagonist a genius implies pre-approval of the
outcome of his challenge. It would be an affirmation, not an
inquiry.
On the other hand, if we view Sherlock Holmes as the drug
addicted misogynist whose work to root out evil does not even
slow the slide into war (in fact, whose values lead
inevitably toward it), we might have a genius noir
protagonist. Maybe?
Best Kerry
------------------------------------------------------
Literary events Calendar (South Ont.) http://www.lit-electric.com
The evil men do lives after them http://www.murderoutthere.com
------------------------------------------------------
-- # Plain ASCII text only, please. Anything else won't show up. # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 09 Apr 2004 EDT