 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010The common notion that Wilde is a literary genius
Hello: Related to the Einstein thread, and in full context this time, please indicate which one you would prefer, 1 or 2 and, respectively, 3 or 4: 1. "the common notion that Wilde is a literary genius" 2. "the common notion that Wilde was a literary genius" 3. "Why Wilde is Not a Genius" 4. "Why Wilde was Not a Genius" ---- "One student posting from the spring of 2002 concerns the writings of Oscar Wilde, a canonical Irish writer famous for many pithy sayings such as "I have nothing to declare except my genius." The title of this post is given in (5): (5) Why Wilde is Not a Genius [Brown University, The Victorian Web March 7. 2002] The student expects readers to have a high opinion of the subject in question, and is thus using negation to dissociate" subject and predicate, in this case the common notion that Wilde is a literary genius. The ground consists of professors and students at Brown University engaging in the common notion that Wilde is a literary genius ..." ---- -- Thanks. Marius Hancu > Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > University engaging in the common notion that Wilde is a literary > genius ..." I don't have any strong feelings about correctness - they both feel right to me. I might draw a distinction between a deceased writer who is still sufficiently highly regarded to be called a "genius" (which is true of Shakespeare, Tolstoy et al., and arguably Wilde too) and a writer who was once highly regarded and is now little read (such as, for example, George Meredith). Will. > [ ... ] > I don't have any strong feelings about correctness - they both feel > right to me. I might draw a distinction between a deceased writer who > is still sufficiently highly regarded to be called a "genius" (which > is true of Shakespeare, Tolstoy et al., and arguably Wilde too) and a > writer who was once highly regarded and is now little read (such as, > for example, George Meredith). On the whole I prefer the past for dead writers, but I prefer it less strongly for ones who are still well regarded, so in general I agree with your analysis. For the work of dead writers I'd normally use the present, even if they died a long time ago: "The Odyssey is a work of genius", but "Homer was a genius".  Signatureathel >> [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > present, even if they died a long time ago: "The Odyssey is a work of > genius", but "Homer was a genius". Of course, there are situations in which the past allows the inference that there might be an "until", e.g., Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player ever. Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player ever [until Marv Throneberry came along]. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |On a scale of one to ten... 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |it sucked. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player ever [until Marv > Throneberry came along]. Agreed. There are always circumstances in which even the most rigid rules (of which this it certainly not one) can and even must be violated. Signatureathel > Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 3. "Why Wilde is Not a Genius" > 4. "Why Wilde was Not a Genius" Let's risk a rule here. When speaking generally of a person now dead, the past tense shall be used. But when speaking of the work, still now existing, of a person now dead, and incidentally turning to mention an aspect of the author, it is permissible to use the present tense. This is acceptable because the work in question is currently present in front of us, and we may speak of its author as being currently represented in front of us in the work. "Look at this painting." "The colours are crap." "Ah, but the artist is colour-blind." No problemo, whether artist be dead or alive. -- franzi > > Related to the Einstein thread, and in full context this time, please > > indicate which one you would prefer, 1 or 2 and, respectively, 3 or [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > "The colours are crap." > "Ah, but the artist is colour-blind." Fine, but how about the sentences 1-4? Thanks. Marius > > > Related to the Einstein thread, and in full context this time, please > > > indicate which one you would prefer, 1 or 2 and, respectively, 3 or [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Fine, but how about the sentences 1-4? Sentence 2 is just fine. Sentence 1 seems wrong. I wouldn't say it. Sentence 4 is just fine. Sentence 3 is acceptable, because it is being used in a critical context, namely an analysis of his extant works. -- franzi >> > > Related to the Einstein thread, and in full context this time, please >> > > indicate which one you would prefer, 1 or 2 and, respectively, 3 or [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Sentence 4 is just fine. Sentence 3 is acceptable, because it is being >used in a critical context, namely an analysis of his extant works. Hang on there. Sentence 1 is wrong? Do you think Wilde is no longer a literary genius? Oh, how fleeting is fame. Sentences 1 and 2 are fine. Now 3 and 4 aren't truly sentences; they are really sentence fragments. This would be ok if they are meant to be titles. As for their correctness is/was-wise, they are just fine. > >> > > Related to the Einstein thread, and in full context this time, please > >> > > indicate which one you would prefer, 1 or 2 and, respectively, 3 or [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Hang on there. Sentence 1 is wrong? Do you think Wilde is no longer a > literary genius? Oh, how fleeting is fame. Yes, I do. I think he was a genius, but alas! he is no more. Sic transit gloria mundi. And I speak as one of Lady Windermere's keenest fans. > Sentences 1 and 2 are fine. Now 3 and 4 aren't truly sentences; they > are really sentence fragments. This would be ok if they are meant to be > titles. As for their correctness is/was-wise, they are just fine. They are all sentences outwith the conventional structure, lacking main verbs. They all signify concepts without saying what becomes of those concepts. But some people would say that "Murray!" was a sentence, if shouted to you in the street, and I wouldn't deny them that assertion. Sentences do not have to contain verbs. I wouldn't elevate 1 and 2 above 3 and 4. They are all in the same class. -- franzi > Related to the Einstein thread, and in full context this time, please > indicate which one you would prefer, 1 or 2 and, respectively, 3 or 4: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 3. "Why Wilde is Not a Genius" > 4. "Why Wilde was Not a Genius" The rather simple principles remain, and why these present-tense usages seems so troublesome is unclear to me. The uses of the present tense are: 1. Reference to present time: he is writing. 2. Expression of a general truth: the world is round, not flat. 3. Lively recounting (the so-called "historical present"): soon a crowd gathers at the scene. 4. In lieu of the present perfect (signifying that a past state continues), often with some chronological adverbial element: he is dead and gone these eighteen years. 5. Indicating futurity: the ships sails tomorrow. 6. In lieu of the future perfect in some adverbial clauses: call me as soon as he arrives. The Wilde (and Einstein) present-tense references can be considered, depending on viewpoint, as most likely exemplifying use #2, but possibly use #4; either way, they are satisfactory and expressive English. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > > 1. "the common notion that Wilde is a literary genius" 2. "the common > > notion that Wilde was a literary genius" [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > depending on viewpoint, as most likely exemplifying use #2, but possibly > use #4; either way, they are satisfactory and expressive English. I'm concerned because, first of all, the clear majority at Google Books avoids the present tense for this expression: 41 on "Wilde was a genius" 8 on "Wilde is a genius" or: 117 on "Shakespeare was a great man" 8 on "Shakespeare is a great man" There's also the specific issue of "genius." IMO: Genius, when talking about the person ("Wilde was a genius") is related to its living embodiment, thus it can be used only during his life, except if you're very religious. Genius, when talking about his work ("Wilde's _work_ is the work of (a) genius), may be used after his death. To me: "Why Wilde is Not a Genius?" should be rephrased, IMO, in the above context, as: "Why Wilde is not _considered_ (these days, in current criticism) a genius?" Thanks. Marius Hancu >> > 1. "the common notion that Wilde is a literary genius" 2. "the common >> > notion that Wilde was a literary genius" [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > 117 on "Shakespeare was a great man" > 8 on "Shakespeare is a great man" If you believe validity of expression is determined by nose counts, you will end up writing some extremely strange English. > There's also the specific issue of "genius." IMO: > > Genius, when talking about the person ("Wilde was a genius") is related > to its living embodiment, thus it can be used only during his life, > except if you're very religious. That is irrelevant. What matters is whether the use of a present tense reasonably falls under one of the rubrics cited above. One not developed there but that might also be applicable here is a variation of #4, the use of the present tense for the present perfect; it is used when a past act is felt as being relevant to the instant moment: "Homer *says* &c," or "I *hear* that you have had some bad luck." If you think there is something amiss with saying "Shakespeare is a great writer," you err. And the difference between "great writer" and "genius" is immaterial. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ > On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 04:58:44 -0800, MariusHancuwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > or "I *hear* that you have had some bad luck." If you think there is > something amiss with saying "Shakespeare is a great writer," you err. No, the only thing I'm saying is that "was" (the past) is more frequent. And that is an important issue. > And the difference between "great writer" and "genius" is immaterial. Marius Hancu [...] > No, the only thing I'm saying is that "was" (the past) is more frequent. > And that is an important issue. It is certainly more frequent because contexts in which the present tense is useful and appropriate are decidedly less common. (I would think that critical reviews might be the most usual cases.) It is, I suppose, largely a matter of "ear". The past will rarely if ever be inappropriate, and so is safest. But at certain times, the present makes a better expression of the feeling being put forth. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.