At 02:44 PM 9/2/2006, you wrote:
>--- Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >... the mind that creates (what to
> > call it.....maybe "that
> > impersonal capacity without which poetry can not
> > come to be worth [more
> > than] the paper it is written on").
>Why not calling it simply genius?
In American English, at any rate, I'm not sure it would quite make
sense. And while mine above was not a totally serious attempt, maybe it's
worthwhile to get at a little more what it is. I think the disagreement on
this list lives in the undefined middle.
Interesting interview on NPR this morning that touches closely on this.
Might be worth a listen if your computer allows it:
It centers on novels and novelists. The interviewee, a Columbia
professor, notes that the author of the novel (and, as he says, "this is
the case with any artist") is different from the person who sat down to
write the book. In the context of the interview it could practically be a
direct restatement of the difference between "the man who suffers and the
mind which creates."