Which genius is harder to attain?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-02-09 01:58am

Scientific genius: of any field but has to be one that is one of the greater and more difficult fields (ie super high-level mathematics, quantum mechanics, theoretical physics, etc)

Literary genius: does not have to be confined to a specific genre, and can be novel, play, or poetic.

Which "greatness" is more difficult to attain?

And for a less important question: which has human history seen more of?

Captain tycho · Post by **Captain tycho** » 2003-02-09 02:10am

Scientific greatness.
Mostly because you are more limited than writers, (well, somewhat, it depends) and do not have many chances to claim greatness. Writers, however, if they are good enough, can make many claims to greatness.

There's my two cents...

jaeger115 · Post by **jaeger115** » 2003-02-09 02:12am

Scientific genius.

Literary geniuses only need to be good writers, understand allegories, parallelism, and all these "techniques of language" shit.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-02-09 02:29am

Scientific easily. Einstein wouldn't be remembered the way he is if he hadn't had to work so very hard at the math he really didn't have a head for. A literary genius just has to master the language, which is easy in comparison.
Assuming genius is a gift that comes with birth, of course.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2003-02-09 03:59am

literary genius I think would be harder. Science is basically number crunching until you figure out whatever it is you wanted to figure out.

to be a good writer, you have to have a much more intricate understanding of humanity in order to connect with a lot of readers, and be able to translate that understanding into terms the average reader can understand. To be remembered as a great literary mind you have to say something profound about the human nature, or human condition that changes the way people think about themselves and the rest of humanity. Scientists simply have to come up with an answer for a question.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-09 04:26am

Scientific genius is determined by the universe; it judges your theories ruthlessly but fairly. It is real.

Literary genius, on the other hand, is in the eye of the beholder. In short, if you can convince enough people that you're a genius, you become a genius. Needless to say, this is nowhere near as impartial or difficult a judge as the universe itself.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-02-09 04:41am

Scientific genius. Because the more knowledge a scientist possesses, the more the scientist knows that he or she does not know.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » 2003-02-09 10:25am

Darth Wong wrote:Literary genius, on the other hand, is in the eye of the beholder. In short, if you can convince enough people that you're a genius, you become a genius. Needless to say, this is nowhere near as impartial or difficult a judge as the universe itself.

True, but at least the universe doesn't laugh at you if you suck.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-02-09 11:25am

Both are equally hard.

But to be fair, if Einstein hadn't come up with Special and General Relativity, if Newton hadn't figured out gravity, someone else would have (see Darwin and Wallace - both as great scientists as Newton or Einstein).

Only one man could ever have written Hamlet

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-02-09 12:17pm

innerbrat wrote:Both are equally hard.

But to be fair, if Einstein hadn't come up with Special and General Relativity, if Newton hadn't figured out gravity, someone else would have (see Darwin and Wallace - both as great scientists as Newton or Einstein).

Only one man could ever have written Hamlet

There are a lot of people who like to argue about that too. Although, to the best of my knowledge their argument is more about which guy was *really* Shakespeare than whether it was written by Shakespeare.

Sindai · Post by **Sindai** » 2003-02-09 01:29pm

Equally hard.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-02-09 05:07pm

Apples and oranges. It's impossible to compare the two, because the demands of each are so different. I wouldn't mind being either one, but since I can't do math, I'm going to have to hope I'm a literary genius waiting to flower.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-02-09 05:10pm

I must go with Red. Part of me would like to say equally hard, but I sure as hell hope not because I suck in math.

Solid Snake · Post by **Solid Snake** » 2003-02-09 06:59pm

Scientific genius.
People call Shakespere a genius even though i think his work is stupid, long, boring used toilet paper.
Like Mike said, it's in the eye of the beholder.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-09 07:03pm

Scientific genius.

All you have to do to be a Literary genius is either be able to
A. Convice large amounts of not so bright fokes(For example those that buy Home Exercise Machines) that your new Book/Play is the greatest thing ever and blam, your a Literary Genius
However devolping a Giant Moon mounted Death-Ray does not involve opionion polls, though it might involve large amounts of Gulilbe people(Giant Lasers don't just build themselves!)

salm · Post by **salm** » 2003-02-09 07:06pm

depends on your talents and intrests.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-02-09 08:22pm

I would think that a literary genius is harder to ATTAIN, because you need to have a certain natural ability that cannot be taught or learned. There have been scientific and mathematical geniuses who have learned enough to be able to develop spectacular theories mathematically, or who have essentially gotten lucky in developing things accidentally.

However, true scientific or mathematical geniuses are VERY rare. It is almost certainly less common to be born with a mathematical gift sufficient to make oneself a genius than it is to be born with literary talent sufficient to be a memorable writer.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-02-09 08:24pm

Mr Bean wrote:All you have to do to be a Literary genius is either be able to
A. Convice large amounts of not so bright fokes(For example those that buy Home Exercise Machines) that your new Book/Play is the greatest thing ever and blam, your a Literary Genius
However devolping a Giant Moon mounted Death-Ray does not involve opionion polls, though it might involve large amounts of Gulilbe people(Giant Lasers don't just build themselves!)

Actually, you have to convince the critics that your work is noteworthy, which sucks because normally they recognize you well after you die. The critics couldn't care less about the instant best-sellers that people like Tom Clancy and Steve King crank out. They look for ability beyond the ordinary. Very few literary geniuses are recognized within their lifetimes.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-09 09:18pm

This is no contest. I've been told by more than one English professor that my writing is "brilliant" and that I could write editorials for the Washington Post. My physics professors tend to grade my work on whether it's right or wrong.

There is no objective basis for literary genius. I thought The Scarlett Letter sucked ass to such a degree that I couldn't even bring myself to listen to it on tape, and it's supposed to be a great novel. No one can possibly deny with a straight face that Einstein's contributions to physics or Newton's development of Calculus were strokes of genius, however.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-10 12:10am

Science all the way. Sure, you usually need to be pretty good at writing to be a literary genius, but scientific greatness is either just plain right or wrong on your account.

On a personal note, I've often been told the songs and poems I write are really good, and my counselor said my sci-fi short story was...interesting. Exactly the respone I wanted.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-02-10 12:53am

Durandal wrote:This is no contest. I've been told by more than one English professor that my writing is "brilliant" and that I could write editorials for the Washington Post. My physics professors tend to grade my work on whether it's right or wrong.

There is no objective basis for literary genius. I thought The Scarlett Letter sucked ass to such a degree that I couldn't even bring myself to listen to it on tape, and it's supposed to be a great novel. No one can possibly deny with a straight face that Einstein's contributions to physics or Newton's development of Calculus were strokes of genius, however.

Frankly, just because you can write for the Washington Post doesn't make you a literary genius. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you write very effectively, but there's a difference between a genius and an excellent writer.

For example, consider the case of Edmund Spenser. Here we have a poet who was writing The Faerie Queene when he passed away. This was intended to be an epic poem, and one of only twelve complete allegories that have ever been written in English. Now, TFQ was written in an extraordinarily difficult verse form he created specifically for the poem. It consisted of a nine-line stanze, with a rhyme scheme ABABBCBCC. The first eight lines are in iambic pentameter, with the final line in iambic hexameter. It is a closed stanza, and Spenser wrote more than TEN THOUSAND such stanzas without a single violation of any part of that scheme. TFQ was designed not only as a complete allegory, with each character representing a specific idea, and each plot point being either an allusion or a symbol, along with each setting, but each character was ALSO based on a specific politician of the era, including the English Court. Such a feat has NEVER been done before or since, and even the spectacular mechanical poet Byron was incapable of duplicating the Spenserian stanza for any length of work despite his efforts to do so. Spenser is perhaps the most clear-cut of the literary geniuses, but believe me--they are NOT literary geniuses because they convince morons that their work is good. They are geniuses because of their ideas and the manner in which they present them. There are only five or six literary geniuses in ALL of American literature, and perhaps only fifteen or twenty in all of the literature in Europe. They are NOT selected more or less arbitrarily, and the more one learns about literature the more one is able to recognize the differences between the exceptional writers (ie. Kurt Vonnegut) and the truly extraordinary.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-02-10 12:54am

UltraViolence83 wrote:Science all the way. Sure, you usually need to be pretty good at writing to be a literary genius, but scientific greatness is either just plain right or wrong on your account.

On a personal note, I've often been told the songs and poems I write are really good, and my counselor said my sci-fi short story was...interesting. Exactly the respone I wanted.

Again, I don't mean to insult you, but there's a huge difference between being "very good" and being a literary genius. It's not the same at all.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-02-10 02:19am

Both...because honestly there is a vast difference in being a genius and being very good.

I honestly do not believe either is something that is purely learned or given. Some people have through their lifetime attain an affinity to either and capitalize upon it.

MoO pointed out a spectacular example of literary genius, something that is Einstein level in the field of Science

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-02-10 02:44am

Master of Ossus wrote:
UltraViolence83 wrote:Science all the way. Sure, you usually need to be pretty good at writing to be a literary genius, but scientific greatness is either just plain right or wrong on your account.

On a personal note, I've often been told the songs and poems I write are really good, and my counselor said my sci-fi short story was...interesting. Exactly the respone I wanted.
Again, I don't mean to insult you, but there's a huge difference between being "very good" and being a literary genius. It's not the same at all.

None taken. I'm very far from being a genius in anything.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-02-10 12:42pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Durandal wrote:This is no contest. I've been told by more than one English professor that my writing is "brilliant" and that I could write editorials for the Washington Post. My physics professors tend to grade my work on whether it's right or wrong.

There is no objective basis for literary genius. I thought The Scarlett Letter sucked ass to such a degree that I couldn't even bring myself to listen to it on tape, and it's supposed to be a great novel. No one can possibly deny with a straight face that Einstein's contributions to physics or Newton's development of Calculus were strokes of genius, however.
Frankly, just because you can write for the Washington Post doesn't make you a literary genius. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you write very effectively, but there's a difference between a genius and an excellent writer.

For example, consider the case of Edmund Spenser. Here we have a poet who was writing The Faerie Queene when he passed away. This was intended to be an epic poem, and one of only twelve complete allegories that have ever been written in English. Now, TFQ was written in an extraordinarily difficult verse form he created specifically for the poem. It consisted of a nine-line stanze, with a rhyme scheme ABABBCBCC. The first eight lines are in iambic pentameter, with the final line in iambic hexameter. It is a closed stanza, and Spenser wrote more than TEN THOUSAND such stanzas without a single violation of any part of that scheme. TFQ was designed not only as a complete allegory, with each character representing a specific idea, and each plot point being either an allusion or a symbol, along with each setting, but each character was ALSO based on a specific politician of the era, including the English Court. Such a feat has NEVER been done before or since, and even the spectacular mechanical poet Byron was incapable of duplicating the Spenserian stanza for any length of work despite his efforts to do so. Spenser is perhaps the most clear-cut of the literary geniuses, but believe me--they are NOT literary geniuses because they convince morons that their work is good. They are geniuses because of their ideas and the manner in which they present them. There are only five or six literary geniuses in ALL of American literature, and perhaps only fifteen or twenty in all of the literature in Europe. They are NOT selected more or less arbitrarily, and the more one learns about literature the more one is able to recognize the differences between the exceptional writers (ie. Kurt Vonnegut) and the truly extraordinary.

I'm not saying that I'm a literary genius, but attaining excellence in literature is far easier than doing so in science. Frankly, Spenser's accomplishments don't strike me as anything more than doing the same thing 10,000 times. The extraordinary thing was the amount of work he put into it. That might matter in literature, but plenty of scientists have put lots of work into theories only to have them completely contradict observation.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Which genius is harder to attain?

Which is harder to attain?

Which genius is harder to attain?