I have a prof who is always going on about all of these literary greats who wrote all of their wonderful stuff by the time they were 25 or 30. (Granted, they were mostly dead rather soon thereafter...)I was sitting there thinking that I don't have all that much time to think. Even if I were a genius, which I'm certainly not claiming to be, I wouldn't know it because there has been way too much distraction. Think of the TV on almost all the time in the background. Then there's the radio. Then there's all the required coursework. I mean, really, the only time in the day where I consistantly have time to just stop and think in relative quiet is on the bus (when I'm able to zone out the other people talking around me) and in the shower. I'd say I've conceived of most of my most recent papers while washing my hair.
The greats of the past didn't have these problems. They read if or when they wanted to. Many came from families with money, so they didn't have to work for a living. There were no TVs or radios. They had to walk or ride horse wherever they went, so there were probably longer stretches of time between point A and point B. Anytime that they were alone, it would have been quiet. (Granted, we can turn off the radio or TV, but we often don't.) They just had a lot more time, I think to think, because they had nothing else to stimulate that part of the brain. Also, they didn't necessarily have other people telling them what to write (say in course work), so they could devote their time to what they were really interested in developing.
NBC has reported on something that I think supports my hypothesis.
Jordan Grafman, Ph.D., National Institute of Neurological Disorders says, "It's quite likely that they're not going to have a lot of pause time to deliberate about the work they're doing. So where's the cost there? It's in deep thinking. It's in being thoughtful about what you're doing."
Note: For those of you who have read this far, I recommend that you read the comments too. They are just as, if not more interesting than this entry.
4 comments:
Actually your “hypothesis” is at best banal (think of the endless stream of commentaries in the media on children’s shortened attention spans) and at worst too general to be proven true or false. What “geniuses” are you referring to? First of all, there are several writers in the German tradition who wrote well into old age (think of Goethe) or started writing in old age (Fontane). Even if we consider those writers or poets who “wrote all of their wonderful stuff by the time they were 25 or 30” there are many who practiced other professions at the same time, the most obvious example from the 19th century being Georg Büchner, who was not only a playwright but a doctor, professor of medicine and revolutionary before his death at 23. Even Novalis, who is pictured on your blog, underwent training as a mining engineer even though he came from an aristocratic background. In fact, writers who do nothing but write are a rare occurrence in any century. Those who want to create find the time to do so. And you could always turn off the TV while you work.
-- a Scholar
Interesting that you should mention that I could turn of the TV while I work...it sounds familiar...oh yeah, I already mentioned that in the original entry.
I agree, that the hypothesis is not something that could be tested to be proven true or false, but that doesn't mean that it's not something to consider. (As a Second Language Acquisition researcher, I often face this problem. One can never really know if it was a particular lesson that made a difference in language learning/acquisition.)
Just for the sake of argument, though, coming back to just being able to turn off the TV, it might be too late. I've been told by a clinical psychologist, that the human brain doesn't mature until about age 25. I'm already 25. Maybe the creative time was earlier. Perhaps I've missed the window and would have had to have been a genius sooner (again, no claims that I personally am or could have been one).
Also, even though Novalis and others had professions, they still had a lot of time without external distractions (like TV or radio), since they still had to get from point A to point B - i.e. time spent walking, as opposed to potentially driving with the radio on. Also, depending on one's profession, it's possible to think while working. I know that I had ample opportunity to think while working as a stock-girl (in case you were wondering, there was a radio, but only instrumentals were played). I would say that I had more time for deep thought doing that than I do now in my graduate student life.
So, in sum, I wouldn't dismiss the idea of out hand, even though it could never be more than a mental exercise, since it couldn't be proven one way or the other.
(On a side note, how do we know the core temperature of the sun? They haven't been able to send in a probe to measure it, since it would melt/burn. Perhaps it is the home of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Probably not, but how do we know?)
Don't worry Karen, it's just a troll who can't even give his/her name.
Time for reflection has always been valued by great creative geniuses.
Teresa
Along similar lines, there was an article in the Fall 2006 Phi Kappa Phi Forum about Alfred Woodcock, a natural scientist who had absolutely no formal training. In fact, he dropped out of high school. He hired on as a sailor of an oceanic research vessel and began to study nature. "Time and again, Woodcock's research opened new vistas in the earth sciences."
So yes, time to think and contemplate is useful. So is an unspoiled, new point of view. It probably also takes a particular personality which is entertained by thinking, as much or more than by doing, and which perserveres even without positive feedback. I think people who get by with little sleep also have an advantage.
I once tried writing a book. I got as far as sending in a sample chapter, but when it wasn't immediately accepted I gave up the whole project. I also find I'm easily distracted, and unwilling to get up early or stay up late to write. So don't feel bad about not becoming famous by the age of 25.
Post a Comment