Who but you can say what you detect?  If you detect it in my saying that talent exists whatever view taken towards it, including no view at all, you'd do yourself a favor to send your instrument out for recalibration.


Peter Montgomery wrote:
Aha, discussion button of interest.
Do I detect a hint of elite ranking?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: OT - Samuel Johnson, a critic at large

Clearly Marcia is right.  It is not the word itself, "talent," that
matters but the idea that some work is better than other work for aesthetic
reasons that are, of course, historically framed.
Why mock Colley Cibber if there is no such thing as "talent," which he was
seen to lack.  The "coinage of the times" in this case is semantic only
unless you have some philosophical and historically-based reason for your

Even if talent wasn't discussed, even if it wasn't named, even if it was
despised, it meant good work was written.
Peter Montgomery wrote:
In thosze days talent meant nothing
(invention of Rousseauian romantticists).
The innate ability if wit was the coinage of the times.


Marcia Karp <[log in to unmask]> 12/17/08 10:28 AM >>>
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.18/1850 - Release Date:
12/15/2008 5:04 PM