Poison
I got the poison.
I got the remedy.
I got the pulsating rhythmical remedy.
I got the poison.
I got the remedy.
I got the pulsating rhythmical remedy.
I got the poison.
I got the remedy.
I got the pulsating rhythmical remedy.
I got the poison.
I got the remedy.
I got the poison. I got the poison. I got the poison.
Yeah… Yeah… Yeah…
Yeah… (Boom…) Yeah… (Bah…)
Whoah. Song sure seems simple when you just look at the lyrics only. LOL ;0)
Neph: Good thoughts. But you’re wrong about Shakespeare and all the others not inventing anything new. Read Bloom’s “The Western Canon” for more info on this very interesting topic.
And yes, “genius” does come from the same root as “genie” - which is related to “djinn”, etc. So I’d say that the production aspect is one very good litmus test, should one be needed.
I agree with you Char on the literary tip, but genius is such a slippery term.
What then would you consider someone like Lao Tzu and his writings?
How about the Dalai Llama or others who are said to have been at an extremely advanced “stage” of spirituality at a young age? Prodigy? Genius?
I don’t know.
Or Woody Guthrie (songwriter & writer)?
Woody didn’t invent anything new, but was called a genius for the way he put his experiences into words, the way he formed his ideas into song & printed word.
How often do child prodigy’s turn out to be genius in their field?
Shit Dan, I’ve been singng the wrong lyrics to that song for almost 10 years now!!
Guess you learn something new everyday, awesome live though.
DAN C: To be honest, I read that book about 10 years ago, so I don’t remember too many specifics. Obviously it was easy enough (and interesting enough) for a middle schooler to read, if that gives you any indication.
char-dawg: I do believe that Shakespeare and many other literary greats did produce new things. I think, however, that their primary contributions were in the form of new ways of using the language, rather than a revolution in literary form. Not having read the book you recommended, I can’t really comment on it, but I’ll check it out sometime after I get back in the states.
My main argument is that the literary greats don’t generally create new ‘themes’ or truly revolutionary literary forms. After all, you can only tweak things so far before they become incomprehensible, and it’s also hard to revolutionize an art that has been studied for thousands of years.
More than anything, though, I think most people don’t think of writers as geniuses simply because anyone ‘can write,’ no matter how poorly. A layman can’t conduct chemistry experiments, however (or at least, won’t convince himself that they were worth anything). It also takes some doing to come up with a mathematical theorum (as well as a lot of background knowledge/experience), so it seems that the maths and sciences (and anything else that you need practice and skill to be measurably good at) are ‘easier’ for getting genius status.
And this was me rambling after having travelled all day in Rome. Thank you.
Nephorm: All I can say is: read the book, then see what you think.
Having said that, I will disagree with you about Shakespeare. All of Freud, for example, is to be found in Shakespeare. No writer since Shakespeare can escape his influence, while Shakespeare himself was virtually sui generis. Almost alone among writers (Cervantes being the other), Shakespeare’s plays can be translated into any other language and still not lose their appeal. (In other words, the themes are truly universal.)
I would say that Shakespeare was not only a genius, but perhaps the ultimate genius of all time. And I’m not alone in my opinion; Emerson wrote: “Shakespeare is the horizon beyond which we cannot see.”
(He was not, however, a prodigy. 
)
Shakespeare did lift quite heavily from earlier works, however, including mythology and early drama. Besides, he was really just Francis Bacon, anyway ;-).
I’ll read the book though, and we can debate after that. It would be rather hard to compete with the guy who basically constructed Western Drama, though.