Eccentricity is not, as some would believe, a form of madness. It is often a kind of innocent pride, and the man of genius and the aristocrat are frequently regarded as eccentrics because genius and aristocrat are entirely unafraid of and uninfluenced by the opinions and vagaries of the crowd.
— Dame Edith Sitwell (1887-1964), English Poetess
Speaking of eccentricity, I suspect that if you commissioned a scientific poll and asked people if they generally thought our shared monarchy was an ancient glory, harmless eccentricity or intolerable relic, 5% would declare it a glory, 60% would decide it was harmless and 35% would spit and wail intolerable, or somewhere thereabouts (we have opened a new poll in the sidebar, you are encouraged to generate grossly unscientific results).
LOL, Beaverbrook.
ReplyDeleteYes, sometimes I think we do have a slender grip on reality, but then we make up for it by maintaining an acute awareness of the vulgarity of our times.
I think you are onto something here, but the genius is more the result of the heredity tendency strengthened through centuries of breeding and
ReplyDeleteinbreeding by ruling dynasties and the upper social class.
The fact is that ruling families all intermarried and formed a
single breed and therefore had biologically a better qualification for their
profession than the average man. It seems to be a proven
fact that there is a noticeable difference in the I.Q.‘s of
different social classes, and there can be no doubt
that the intermarriage of those endowed with a superior talent
for specific tasks results in a breed with an aptitude above
normal.
"[S]ocietal norms"?! That's jargon, and poor English. Say "social norms". You are an Anglophile (itself an oddity for one who lives with the English) who dishonours the English language.
ReplyDelete