Pynchon is not a genius yet

[Terrance]

My son calls me a genius. When I do something stupid or
worse yet when I embarrass him, he says, "nice going
genius." It's not easy being green. And it's tough being a
single parent.  The old Greek saying, I'll translate it as,
"when I am old my son can bring me a glass of water." In
other words, I'll pay for his education and he will be a
son. 

"The term originated in the eighteenth century and has
become a questionable one. Indeed, we cannot call any of our
contemporaries by this term. Not only do we lack the
necessary distance from the individual, but we also cannot
adequately define the concept in terms of the works that
created as we look on. We are dependent on models...But let
us retain the concept. The reader knows who is meant: the
rare executor of enduring high achievement, independent of
social conditions, uncomprehended by sociology and
anthropology, recognized but apparently insufficiently
comprehended by psychology; the executor of works that have
contributed to our own formation and without which we cannot
conceive our own existence. I speak of the creative genius
of the past." 

                --Wolfgang Hildesheimer

We cannot conceive our existence? Anyone read that Harold
Bloom book on Shakespeare? 

Now here I am traditional. To me. the works of
 Shakespeare, Dante, Lao Tzu, Homer, Milton, 
Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Mozart,
Chaucer, and other great geniuses, transcend the
vicissitudes of time and
circumstance. And so it is not an exaggeration 
to claim that the continuous influence of these
"texts" has contributed to the common bonds of our humanity. 

Bound together each generation is indebted to the great
works (yes, I believe there are great works, even a
hierarchy of texts and readings of those texts)  that
precede them and inspired to proceed in producing great
"texts" of their
own which can enkindle the imagination of their
contemporaries and future
generations and keep the Promethean torch ablaze. 


In our age the torch burns brightly, for we enjoy
unprecedented access to numerous cultural 
heritages, which are rendered accessible
by persistent advances in scholarship, translations of
foreign texts, and new technologies. 
Though at times clouded by the veneer of
academic debate, mass media sound
 bite prognostication, politics, global
economic exploitation, and plastic packaged 
fast food cultural exchange the
foundations of pluralism and cultural cross-fertilization 
are deeply set in the great
works of the past. Accepting this premise 
we can surmise that future
generations will gain even greater insights
 into our cultural heritage. It seems
certain that they will develop even 
more sophisticated approaches to the great
works and inspired by them will, in 
turn produce great works of genius
that will inspire succeeding generations.

 As I have stated in previous posts, I believe the work of
contemporary hermeneutics is in part to gather the great
resources of our cultural heritage and 
inspire new possibilities of thought,
expression,  and action. Now, I do not 
believe that there is anything
sacred in any of the great works, or in any
 particular philosophical or religious
system, which renders them 
impervious to reinterpretation. However, I
believe it is asinine to think that one 
can refute or even deconstruct any
of the great texts. As I stated 
previously, whatever the function of
criticism of contemporary works, 
it is no longer its role to tell
Chaucer, for example,  that the 
Wife of Bath is too burdened with ironies.


Mozart has been called the musical genius of a millennium.
Such a statement goes well beyond personal listening
preferences; it rather, purports to define 
human accomplishments according to
several historical criteria. We can 
not apply these criteria to our
contemporaries, for we lack not only 
the necessary distance from the individual but also
the ability to define such accomplishments 
as they are created in our midst. 



Pynchon is not a genius yet.