<p>I think a crucial problem in understanding literary genius is the belief that writing is hugely more qualitative than mathematics, and that it should be either enjoyable or didactic. There is excellence in writing, even if an individual reader subjectively denigrates it as boring or useless. The creation of believable narratives and compelling suasion takes great intelligence.
You may dislike some of the seminal works of literature. You may love some forgettable ones. Neither of those means that the former are not works of genius or that the latter are not middling.</p>
<p>^^ I understand TCBH’s point. Grade levels are essentially arbitrary, and if we are content to allow students to graduate with 8th grade reading levels those are for all practical purposes the levels expected from 12th graders. But you are still correct, at least assuming that you are referring to something like the Flesch-Kincaid test.</p>
<p>Go read about the Flesch-Kincaid test and then tell me it does not differentiate between people with different reading abilities. I’m not going to belabor my point. Reread my previous posts and try again.</p>
<p>You seem to be arguing for technical judgment of literature. Since there are no natural or observable phenomena that serve as criteria for “good” writing, any such metrics are inherently arbitrary. Certainly one could analyze the complexity of sentence structure or vocabulary, but the “best” literature according to such a scale would be neither useful for many nor enjoyable for many.</p>
<p>EDIT: Advances in AI and neuroscience may change this, but for now we have no scientific base.</p>
<p>Why would I tell you that? It has nothing to do with my point. That the test spits out a grade level for you doesn’t make it your actual grade level. If a large chunk of the population older than 8th grade scores below the 8th grade, then:</p>
<p>1) it probably isn’t trying to be an empirical measure of what grade your ability actually corresponds to OR
2) it’s an incredibly flawed metric</p>
<p>Now clearly, more than anything, it’s meant to be a goal that students should aim for. But if (purely hypothetically) a 12th grader reads at a 9th grade level while the national average is 6th grade, you can’t argue that the 12th grader isn’t above average. And if he’s reading at a higher level than most other people, he is by definition advanced, regardless of what the test says.</p>
<p>“Advanced” can be defined as either “farther along in physical or mental development” [TCBH] or “highly developed especially in technology or industry” [LYM].</p>
<p>Then you agree with me. “Advanced” is a relative term. </p>
<p>Forget labeling levels as eighth-grade or ninth-grade, etc. If student A reads at a higher level than student B, whose proficiency is equal to the national average, then student A is technically, be definition, “advanced.” However, this does not preclude student A’s reading level from being (dramatically) lower than what most CCers, for example, would consider “advanced.”</p>
<p>@kishiki4-- well yea, i think the people who have “high-achieving” (not just adequate) abilities across all areas (math/science/the humanities) are the true geniuses…or even a step above genius lol…a rarity.</p>
<p>And if it takes that much familiarity to tell them apart, why does it matter? It’s like in music. There’s so much good music, so why does it matter if a work is by Mozart or Reicha?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And how do you differentiate between the two kinds of advancement? I think the work of many writers, philosophers, social scientists, artists, etc. has greatly impacted the sciences. If you take any anthropology class, you’ll learn the difference between cultural and biological means of adaptation, and trust me, the last 200,000 years of human history have been the story of human cultural adaptation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hm. Well, first of all, tons of Americans hate Darwin. Secondly, what makes you think no scientist could ever write works like The Waste Land and Murder in the Cathedral? What about those super-polymath-people who are amazing at everything? And how are T.S. Eliot’s works not based in some sense in the work of others an tangible observation?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe I’m misreading your post, but…it’s really hard to go up to an artist and say “Your work is ‘supposed to be’ [different].” Like with architecture. Doesn’t that have “utilitarian use”?</p>
<p>But Prufrock is short! It’s not like reading In Search of Lost Time or anything!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can’t do scientific work without entirely original thoughts in mind (unless the other person with your thoughts is in some rural Vietnamese village and never publishes). Otherwise, it’s called plagiarism. Eliot had an entire society to work with.</p>
Secondly, what makes you think no scientist could ever write works like The Waste Land and Murder in the Cathedral? What about those super-polymath-people who are amazing at everything? And how are T.S. Eliot’s works not based in some sense in the work of others an tangible observation?</p>