JIM DOHERTY wrote:
No it's not, because genius isn't the point.
************** Genius is not the point. That's correct. It is
an analogy, something that is dissimilar in many respects but
similar in at least one. Let me spell out the analogy. If we
are considering intelligence in people and point out some as
geniuses, there is a parallel between that and considering
the enduring qualities of writing and pointing out some as
literature. There is your analogy.
Genius is not the point. That's correct. It is an analogy,
something that is dissimilar in many respects but similar in
at least one. Let me spell out the the similarity for you. If
we are considering intelligence in people and define those
exhibiting it in a great degree as geniuses, there is a
parallel between that and considering the enduring qualities
of writing and defining that which exhibits this to the
greatest degree as literature. There is your analogy.
Might as well take it on home here. So if I complain that
defining enduring writing as literature is dismissive of
other writing that doesn't make the grade, then I might as
well complain that defining some people as geniuses is
dismissive of other people who don't make the cut.
As I stated in another post, if you want me to use the term
"classic" instead of "literature" when referring to writing
that has shown staying qualities, I'm cool with it. It is the
concept which is important, not the term used to refer to it.
The concept is that there is writing that has enduring
qualities that will become classics, while others will gather
dust as mere period pieces.
miker
__________________________________________________ Do You
Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03 Nov 2007 EDT