Loading...
Title : "But hostility to genius has been brewing in our culture for a long time. Almost 100 years ago... the critic Edmund Wilson observed that the almost mystical 'dignity and distinction' traditionally accorded to the figure of the poet was becoming..."
link : "But hostility to genius has been brewing in our culture for a long time. Almost 100 years ago... the critic Edmund Wilson observed that the almost mystical 'dignity and distinction' traditionally accorded to the figure of the poet was becoming..."
"But hostility to genius has been brewing in our culture for a long time. Almost 100 years ago... the critic Edmund Wilson observed that the almost mystical 'dignity and distinction' traditionally accorded to the figure of the poet was becoming..."
"... 'more and more impossible in our modern democratic society.' The ascendancy of science, Wilson argued, had made human beings less prone to viewing themselves as potentially godlike geniuses and more uncomfortably aware of their kinship with other animals and subjection to biological and physical laws. A democratic society was also less at ease with the idea of a 'natural aristocracy' of artists to match the hereditary aristocracy of landowners and rulers.... The prevalent idea in the 21st century is not that nobody is a genius but that everybody is — at least potentially.... That way of thinking is incompatible with the recognition of genius which requires humility, the awed acknowledgment that somebody is unfathomably better at something than you are. We prefer not to confront this uncomfortable fact, hence the extraordinary cultural premium currently placed on 'relatability.' A literary agent recently remarked to me that this has become one of the most sought after qualities in new novels. Not only do readers like to have their experiences reflected back at them but the gap between talented novelist and untalented reader must seem as flatteringly, reassuringly narrow as possible."From "Without the cult of genius, no one is shining/Relatability has become more prized in creative circles than skill or talent — to all of our loss" by James Marriott (London Times).
"Relatability" — referring to that emotional quality — is a pretty recent word. So is "relatable." Thinking about this is reminding of how common it used to be — when was this? 70s? 60? — to say "I can relate."
Here's a NYT "On Language" column from 2010, "The Origins of ‘Relatable’" by Ben Zimmer. A teacher had written in to say that she'd "noticed among my students a growing use of the word 'relatable,' as in 'I like Sarah Palin. She's relatable' (meaning, 'I can relate to her')." The teacher declared it "odd" and wanted to know where that came from:
When this touchy-feely use of relate to took off in the '60s, the adjective form relatable also made its appearance.... A 1965 article in the education journal Theory Into Practice showcased the new meaning when it detailed research findings that "boys saw teachers as more directive, while girls saw them as more 'relatable.' "...
In 1981, the game-show host Bob Eubanks told The Washington Post that "The Newlywed Game" featured "relatable humor, the kind that takes place in every home." The following year, The New York Times quoted a press release for the syndicated series "Couples": "The real difficulties, conflicts and problems of married, dating, living-together and divorced couples rival any type of fictional format for personal and relatable drama."...
By 2006, a Times profile of the new CW network could joke about the creakiness of the cliché: "Someday, there will be an article about television in which no executive uses the word 'relatable,' industry jargon for something with which viewers are supposed to identify or connect. Alas, this is not that article."
The idea of "relating" seems to have taken over over from "identifying." It used to seem to be important to "identify" with the main character. I remember long ago — maybe in the 70s — getting into a conversation about identifying with characters in novels. I said I'd never identified with a character, and my interlocutor said "I always do." We probably had different definitions in mind, with me thinking of a vivid sense that the character and I are the same person, which would be delusional. "Relating" is a more moderate concept: This character seems to feel and act in a way that fits the world as I experience it.
Can you relate to James Marriott, bemoaning the loss of the those gods who walk among us, genius artists? Do you long for a human being to worship, an idol? One answer is: Just get back to worshipping God. Let God be your god.
Loading...
"... 'more and more impossible in our modern democratic society.' The ascendancy of science, Wilson argued, had made human beings less prone to viewing themselves as potentially godlike geniuses and more uncomfortably aware of their kinship with other animals and subjection to biological and physical laws. A democratic society was also less at ease with the idea of a 'natural aristocracy' of artists to match the hereditary aristocracy of landowners and rulers.... The prevalent idea in the 21st century is not that nobody is a genius but that everybody is — at least potentially.... That way of thinking is incompatible with the recognition of genius which requires humility, the awed acknowledgment that somebody is unfathomably better at something than you are. We prefer not to confront this uncomfortable fact, hence the extraordinary cultural premium currently placed on 'relatability.' A literary agent recently remarked to me that this has become one of the most sought after qualities in new novels. Not only do readers like to have their experiences reflected back at them but the gap between talented novelist and untalented reader must seem as flatteringly, reassuringly narrow as possible."
From "Without the cult of genius, no one is shining/Relatability has become more prized in creative circles than skill or talent — to all of our loss" by James Marriott (London Times).
From "Without the cult of genius, no one is shining/Relatability has become more prized in creative circles than skill or talent — to all of our loss" by James Marriott (London Times).
"Relatability" — referring to that emotional quality — is a pretty recent word. So is "relatable." Thinking about this is reminding of how common it used to be — when was this? 70s? 60? — to say "I can relate."
Here's a NYT "On Language" column from 2010, "The Origins of ‘Relatable’" by Ben Zimmer. A teacher had written in to say that she'd "noticed among my students a growing use of the word 'relatable,' as in 'I like Sarah Palin. She's relatable' (meaning, 'I can relate to her')." The teacher declared it "odd" and wanted to know where that came from:
When this touchy-feely use of relate to took off in the '60s, the adjective form relatable also made its appearance.... A 1965 article in the education journal Theory Into Practice showcased the new meaning when it detailed research findings that "boys saw teachers as more directive, while girls saw them as more 'relatable.' "...
In 1981, the game-show host Bob Eubanks told The Washington Post that "The Newlywed Game" featured "relatable humor, the kind that takes place in every home." The following year, The New York Times quoted a press release for the syndicated series "Couples": "The real difficulties, conflicts and problems of married, dating, living-together and divorced couples rival any type of fictional format for personal and relatable drama."...
By 2006, a Times profile of the new CW network could joke about the creakiness of the cliché: "Someday, there will be an article about television in which no executive uses the word 'relatable,' industry jargon for something with which viewers are supposed to identify or connect. Alas, this is not that article."
The idea of "relating" seems to have taken over over from "identifying." It used to seem to be important to "identify" with the main character. I remember long ago — maybe in the 70s — getting into a conversation about identifying with characters in novels. I said I'd never identified with a character, and my interlocutor said "I always do." We probably had different definitions in mind, with me thinking of a vivid sense that the character and I are the same person, which would be delusional. "Relating" is a more moderate concept: This character seems to feel and act in a way that fits the world as I experience it.
Can you relate to James Marriott, bemoaning the loss of the those gods who walk among us, genius artists? Do you long for a human being to worship, an idol? One answer is: Just get back to worshipping God. Let God be your god.
Thus articles "But hostility to genius has been brewing in our culture for a long time. Almost 100 years ago... the critic Edmund Wilson observed that the almost mystical 'dignity and distinction' traditionally accorded to the figure of the poet was becoming..."
that is all articles "But hostility to genius has been brewing in our culture for a long time. Almost 100 years ago... the critic Edmund Wilson observed that the almost mystical 'dignity and distinction' traditionally accorded to the figure of the poet was becoming..." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article "But hostility to genius has been brewing in our culture for a long time. Almost 100 years ago... the critic Edmund Wilson observed that the almost mystical 'dignity and distinction' traditionally accorded to the figure of the poet was becoming..." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2021/10/but-hostility-to-genius-has-been.html
0 Response to ""But hostility to genius has been brewing in our culture for a long time. Almost 100 years ago... the critic Edmund Wilson observed that the almost mystical 'dignity and distinction' traditionally accorded to the figure of the poet was becoming...""
Post a Comment