What Did literary Geniuses Think of Themselves

[breathtest]

Bukowski 'knew' he was a genius.

[Alexander III]

Bukowski 'knew' he was a genius.

Ouch ! well he made a mistake... not to say he isnt a good writer...but genius?

[Perandorrrr]

I remember seeing a part of a lecture given James Ellroy on E! (they did a piece on him some time ago). He was speaking to a small group, probably at a Barnes and Nobles saying (as I paraphrase) 'this is my latest classic, it is a successor to my previous classics'. I couldn't believe how cocky he was, maybe he was joking, but I took him seriously. He and any other post-modern (IMO) can't even be mentioned with some of the names mentioned in this thread.

[Jeremydav]

Bukowski's a hack.

[Transmodernism]

He and any other post-modern (IMO) can't even be mentioned with some of the names mentioned in this thread.

I don't want to step on any toes, but frankly I think that when I am ancient and 90 years old the postmoderns will not have made it into the canon, English or otherwise. 1980 through the early 2000s will probably be a literary intermission in the grand scheme of things. Fields must at times lie fallow.

Sorry, Lucifer made me say it. If anyone here is a PoMo fan, just let me know and I'll

[stlukesguild]

Bukowski's a hack.

Now that should get the pot stirred again.

[stlukesguild]

Sorry, Lucifer made me say it. If anyone here is a PoMo fan, just let me know and I'll

That depends on what counts as "Post-Modern". Now if J.L. Borges, Italo Calvino, Julio Cortazar, Gabriel Garcia-Marquez, Gunter Grass, Anne Carson, Samuel Beckett, Vladimir Nabokov, Cormac McCarthy, Donald Barthleme, Philip Roth, Gore Vidal, etc... count as Post-Modern, well then I'll need to beg to differ.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't know how much being an artistic genius factors into it most times. I think popularity and what people around the artist say is what factors into it more than anything. Of course, you'll have authors who are arrogant no matter their circumstance, but, like someone said, that ego doesn't build up until they hit it big. And, maybe that's why we see some of the authors we now consider to be geniuses to have never been egomaniacs, like Melville, who never got the recognition in his lifetime.

Plus, you don't have to be a literary genius to have an insane ego. Look at Stephanie Meyers, who compared her Twilight schlock to that of Pride and Prejudice (even going as far as to intimate that it was better). Or, Nicholas Sparks, who in one interview bashes Cormac McCarthy. Or, hell, even James Cameron who almost seems to be renowned as a cinematic genius for his tripe. Each one is surrounded by yes-men, constantly being praised. And, when people offer criticism, even a large amount, it's just jealousy, or they "don't get it."

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That depends on what counts as "Post-Modern". Now if J.L. Borges, Italo Calvino, Julio Cortazar, Gabriel Garcia-Marquez, Gunter Grass, Anne Carson, Samuel Beckett, Vladimir Nabokov, Cormac McCarthy, Donald Barthleme, Philip Roth, Gore Vidal, etc... count as Post-Modern, well then I'll need to beg to differ.

And, as an aside, to StLukesGuild and the other intellectuals on this board, when you rattle off a list of names like that, whether it be authors or novels or poems, do you just have all that memorized? I mean, even in the subjects I am familiar with, if put on the spot, I have a hard time coming up with more than five examples. Or, are you like me, and do a quick Google search as a memory refresher? Just curious.

[Wilde woman]

This whole idea of authorship is a fairly modern one. It really only took off after the Romantics and their notion of individualism. Before that, and definitely in my area of specialty, medieval literature, the idea of the author was of little consequence. So much of the best and popular literature (not that I'm equating the two) was written anonymously, so the point was not to take credit for a certain work, but to situate oneself within a certain long-standing tradition of literature. It's simultaneously a refreshing and frustrating PoV to take - refreshing because nowadays we seem so concerned with brand names and who's trendy and who's not, but frustrating because we have so little biographical information about the authors of some of the greatest medieval literature.

[MystyrMystyry]

Bukowski's a hack.

He was also a pretty serious boozer - and as boozers go he was a largely enjoyable hack

I've met boozers that are no fun/entertainment value whatsoever, who's personalities could have only benefited from having a sideline, and I've met writers for whom a quick guzzle of something could've benefited everyone more than their drivel


But! In the red corner with all of the Englsh classics at his disposal StLukes!

In the blue corner with an axe to grind Mutatis

At the sound of the bell come out, shake hands, and let the games begin..!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Lol, I have no axe to grind. I'm just genuinely curious as to their recall ability with names and such, if that's what you're referring to. I greatly respect stlukesguild, even if we've disagreed.

[ZiggyStardust]

See, it is things like that which lead me to believe that truly great genius requires a strong sense of inferiority. Only a powerful insecurity and sense of some lack can provide the drive to do better and improve.

This is why it is foolish to try to inflate children's self-esteem, as the education system in my country is bent on doing. High self-esteem leads only to mediocrity, because you won't strive unless you feel there is a lack.

This is not to say, of course, that we should be masochistic self-flagellators; neither does it mean children should be put down. It means that to be great you have to have a sense that there are unscaled heights and unplumbed depths to be explored and attained.

I completely agree with this statement. I feel like most good writers and artists feel like they will never be good enough, and this in itself is a good thing. Almost every work gets richer in some way because the author continues to push and create even better pieces of work.

As for the statement about children's self esteem and the common misconceptions made by society, well, I agree with that too. Instead of chasing all of that "negative" energy away, why can't we get our children to turn it into something creative and positive? I feel like this would also produce more long-term happiness in a child's future because through this they would learn how to handle tough times on their own...

[stlukesguild]

And, as an aside, to StLukesGuild and the other intellectuals on this board, when you rattle off a list of names like that, whether it be authors or novels or poems, do you just have all that memorized? I mean, even in the subjects I am familiar with, if put on the spot, I have a hard time coming up with more than five examples. Or, are you like me, and do a quick Google search as a memory refresher? Just curious.

Coming up with a list of mid- to late-20th century writers doesn't really involve much of a challenge... especially considering that several of those I listed are among my personal favorites... but even if it were, I need only give a cursory glance around the room at the books on my shelves considering that my computer is in the midst of a small library:



(That's the corner of the desk to the lower left)

And that's but one set of shelves:





I'm at the point where I've had to have shelves in rows jutting out into the space (like an actual library) and not merely lining the walls!

Of course I do use Wikipedia and Google to rapidly search for statistics or the exact words of a quote, but I have the advantage of an almost photographic memory when it comes to something I've read. Now if I could remember my car keys and cell phone...

[stlukesguild]

This whole idea of authorship is a fairly modern one. It really only took off after the Romantics and their notion of individualism. Before that, and definitely in my area of specialty, medieval literature, the idea of the author was of little consequence. So much of the best and popular literature (not that I'm equating the two) was written anonymously, so the point was not to take credit for a certain work, but to situate oneself within a certain long-standing tradition of literature. It's simultaneously a refreshing and frustrating PoV to take - refreshing because nowadays we seem so concerned with brand names and who's trendy and who's not, but frustrating because we have so little biographical information about the authors of some of the greatest medieval literature.

This is even more true of the visual arts. The Renaissance began to establish artists as "artists" and intellectuals... not unlike poets and philosophers... and certainly higher than mere artisans or craftsmen. Romanticism pushed this even further with the notion of the "artist as visionary", "artist as genius", and "artist as voice of the masses". This has led to a great deal of rank amateurs who do little more than stare at their navels and think "deep" thoughts while waiting for inspiration to strike while proclaiming themselves to be "Artists" (with a capitol "A"). It has also led to the "cult of personality" which has resulted in greater value being afforded to worst piece of crap by a well-known or "important" artist, while the most marvelous work by less-well-known artists is ignored.