Bill Pirkle wrote:

>Geniuses are ultimately rebels...

Beethoven and Goethe once met.  Goethe was appalled at Beethoven's
rebellious mind and rude behaviour towards nobility.  So following Bill
Pirkle's definition Beethoven was a genius, Goethe not.  Shakespeare was
a servant of the King being a member of the King's Men.  Not exactly what
you call a rebel.  So Shakespeare, undoubtely an extremely gifted writer,
was no genius?

Bills definition is very subjective and romantic.  But so is the very
word "genius".  People call (almost exclusively dead!) persons with
extraordinary (seemingly miraculous) abilities in mostly artistic fields
geniuses.  The word genius changes these people into worldly saints.  I
think this is a very dangerous habit because it creates (very often blind)
worship and, being a democrat from head to toe, I do not like worshipping
anyone except the divine soul in us all.

Can't we stop saying e.g.  Beethoven was a genius but start saying: he
was a human being with faults and weaknesses but with an astonishingly
craft and gift in writing music that can still move and electrify? Isn't
that enough?

PS People tend to say John Lennon was a genius because he was the "head" of
the Beatles and so rebellious.  But 1) he was not the "head" of the Beatles
(there were two heads) and 2) his rebellion was very naive (Give Peace a
Chance, Sleep-In) and risk-free.  This is what I call the danger of blind
worship.  (And nobody calls McCartney a genius.  Maybe he just lives too
long...)

Robert Peters
robertpeters@t-online