![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mad Genius
Oct. 22nd, 2002 05:55 pmAlan always says that the most interesting people on earth are suicidal. Kirk, he, and I used to talk about that while we were in the hospital. None of us found "normal" people the least bit interesting. We found them colorless. But in the hospital we all found each other. Crazy though we were we found one another endlessly intriguing and we concluded that only crazy people were worth bothering with.
When I look at my circle of friends I find evidence to back up the theory. The vast majority of my friends suffer from one form of psychiatric illness or another, Alan, Kirk, Derek, Tina, Elisabeth, Clark, etc. All are nuts in their own special way.
Then today I checked out a book from the library about mental illness and artistic temperment. A vast majority of notable writers, poets, artists, and musicians, were/are mentally ill. Again I look at my psycho friends, and the first thing I notice is how bloody brilliant most of them are. Take Tina for instance, fucking artistic genius! I'm glad I have some of her "early work" cause that shit's gonna be worth millions some day. Derek is the same, an artist who is way ahead of his time. Alan, though not artistically inclinded, is easily the most intelligent shrink I've ever met. Kirk was a genius who had no idea where to focus his intellect. I could go on but you get the idea.
What is this correlation between insanity and brilliance? Even today in the world of modern fiction and poetry you see some of the most renown practitioners suffering from mental problems. Heck my favorite author and my favorite poet are both ex-junkies! (Addiction counts since it is not the substance that is ultimately addictive it is the personality.)
So if the majority of the people we admire were/are insane why is mental illness so taboo? I don't get it. Wouldn't insanity be a pro in today's world? Wouldn't it be a precursor to success in certain fields?
While flipping through some literary magazines in the library and marvelling at how boring most of the poetry in them was, I realized that what they were missing was a sense of individuality. Sure the craft was apparent, but then again the craft was apparent in all of them, rendering most of them identical by way of organization and to an extent, content. What was missing was that spark of fire that brings any work of art alive. That passion, that imagination, that push that drives one to write as though their life depended on it.
These poems were laborious, and calculated. They had lost their truth. I think what makes the work of the mad so interesting is that it maintains its truthfulness. The work stays true to itself and its author. By extension that may be why insane people are so interesting, they maintain a level of genuiness (is that a word?) that those who follow the status quo do not.
Hmm just a thought. I doubt I've exhausted this line of reasoning.
When I look at my circle of friends I find evidence to back up the theory. The vast majority of my friends suffer from one form of psychiatric illness or another, Alan, Kirk, Derek, Tina, Elisabeth, Clark, etc. All are nuts in their own special way.
Then today I checked out a book from the library about mental illness and artistic temperment. A vast majority of notable writers, poets, artists, and musicians, were/are mentally ill. Again I look at my psycho friends, and the first thing I notice is how bloody brilliant most of them are. Take Tina for instance, fucking artistic genius! I'm glad I have some of her "early work" cause that shit's gonna be worth millions some day. Derek is the same, an artist who is way ahead of his time. Alan, though not artistically inclinded, is easily the most intelligent shrink I've ever met. Kirk was a genius who had no idea where to focus his intellect. I could go on but you get the idea.
What is this correlation between insanity and brilliance? Even today in the world of modern fiction and poetry you see some of the most renown practitioners suffering from mental problems. Heck my favorite author and my favorite poet are both ex-junkies! (Addiction counts since it is not the substance that is ultimately addictive it is the personality.)
So if the majority of the people we admire were/are insane why is mental illness so taboo? I don't get it. Wouldn't insanity be a pro in today's world? Wouldn't it be a precursor to success in certain fields?
While flipping through some literary magazines in the library and marvelling at how boring most of the poetry in them was, I realized that what they were missing was a sense of individuality. Sure the craft was apparent, but then again the craft was apparent in all of them, rendering most of them identical by way of organization and to an extent, content. What was missing was that spark of fire that brings any work of art alive. That passion, that imagination, that push that drives one to write as though their life depended on it.
These poems were laborious, and calculated. They had lost their truth. I think what makes the work of the mad so interesting is that it maintains its truthfulness. The work stays true to itself and its author. By extension that may be why insane people are so interesting, they maintain a level of genuiness (is that a word?) that those who follow the status quo do not.
Hmm just a thought. I doubt I've exhausted this line of reasoning.
