Clever is as clever does
Jul. 29th, 2002 07:42 amI like that story about the Chinese Communist leader who, upon being asked what he thought of the French Revolution, replied "It's too early to tell yet". One advantage of the passing years--hardly a compensation for a slowed metabolism or hyper-sensitivity to caffeine, but some recompense generally--is the opportunity to see how people turn out. Woody Allen's "Annie Hall" has that wonderful scene in which all his childhood classmates describe their futures. In real life, too, one frequently learns what happens to people in high school, college and at the workplace. Sometimes what one learns is not the surprise that life should be, somehow.
People take different positions on the issue of how much other people can change. Some folks think nobody really changes after about age five or so. Others, including myself, think that people can and do change a fair bit of the time. Still, the "no change" folks might have a good argument, based on how the folks I know's lives turned out.
The poor fellow who played basketball well, liked to be "cool", drove a muscle-ish car, and neglected his education turned out pretty much according to the formbook. He married a very cute local girl, settled down near his hometown, and worked in retail until the cute but vapid girl he married ran off with the Baptist music director. I think one of the neglected realities of life is what a gothic life is lived by Baptist music directors at churches all over the south. When I was seventeen, I might have guessed the cool fellow's future; it's hard to be cool after thirty. At seventeen, he might have thought himself a clever fellow, but clever is as clever does.
It's sometimes a matter of goals. The character played by Albert Brooks in "Broadcast News", being beaten by his classmates for snide things he said as high school valedictorian during his graduation speech, shouts at his oppressors "You'll never make more than $ 19,000 dollars a year in your life!". The toughs halt a moment, reflect, and then one of them says "19,000. Pretty good". Then they resume their oppression.
The nice woman who was too bored in high school because she was meant for better things of course turns out to be the woman who runs off with a soldier she doesn't love to just to escape the small town. She learned, as people generally do, that large towns lived in with people you don't love, particularly on enlisted pay, are not that much more thrilling than small towns. She'd been far too clever for our small town. Her cleverness had made her too clever by half.
The procession of cleverness marched onward through my younger days,
like those folks in Masters' Spoon River Anthology, where everybody in the graveyard has some meaningful story to tell. The fellow who loved studying science and studying alcohol accepts a second rate degree in the former so that he can pursue the latter with a vengeance; you see, he's always been clever enough to drink with abandon and "get away with it". The woman so clever she could both succeed in school and date football players of course married a macho football player, who apparently promptly beat her. The fellow too clever to sit still for college now cleverly works retail while the world passes him by. The woman, one of many actually, so clever that she thought she was more elite than her coworkers now sits at home in mid-career, too clever to work with anyone else. The fellow so clever that he thought he could sell anything without trying, mysteriously stopped selling things when he stopped trying.
By contrast, people who thought they were not clever seem to come out differently and somehow "better". The woman who thought she was a simpleton in school studied assiduously, got her degree and took a nice job. She also thought she was really too plain to attract anyone cute, so she focused on finding someone nice and married a kind fellow. The man who thought he should work hard at the jobs he could obtain with his limited education and save his money rather than spend it now has been promoted to a job educated people usually hold and has a huge savings and no debt. The woman who never dreamed of escaping the small town got her degree from an ordinary university, married a worthy fellow she met in school, and now happily teaches school in the town she never really left.
I've built this construct carefully, and of course there are clever people who succeed (in the case of one moronically clever lawyer I know, maddeningly, as a rebuke of sort to Justice), as well as earnest, non-clever, hardworking people who get mired in failure.
But so often the attributes we feel are our crowning clevernesses
are our tragic flaws. I've also found that people who think they have to work hard at their dreams have a better run than people who imagine their talents should automatically permit them to achieve their goals.
I've always aligned myself with the clever, but lately I wonder if I should be re-aligning with the non-clever, good souls. They may not be the exotic spices I sometimes aspire to be, but they are, after all, the salt of the earth.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 06:32 am (UTC)unless of course, you're ME ;-)
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 07:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 07:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 07:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 07:42 am (UTC)I have long since accepted the wisdom of being ordinary.
I will continue to value my acute intelligence, sensitivity and insight.
And I have a feeling that is not quite what you are referring to by "clever".
Hubris maybe....
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 08:07 am (UTC)I hear so often the cry that second rate people get the best things, while true genius starves. In one sense, I agree with this sentiment, because it is a cold cruel world in which the best does not always prosper. But in another sense, I wonder if the reason why people who are not wise, creative or cool sometimes prosper is that they try harder.
I wonder if that isn't a very good thing.
Of course, many of the "cool" people in the post weren't cool at all, so it is rather a different thing.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 08:37 am (UTC)And one is fortunate to have a talent for it.
My own definition of 'clever' is being practical and resourceful.
I generally find semantics to be at the root of any misunderstanding.
(buzzing with an oxygen high and battling the impulse to do or say something outrageous and shocking)
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 08:39 am (UTC)but not as much as "we" (the everybody we) do now.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 09:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 09:14 am (UTC)In the context of my post, of course, I'm disparaging rather a different form of faux "cleverness", a sort of cool that is something different than "real cool". Still, even for
talented people, I wonder if just existing talentedly is reward enough. I don't know enough about work ethic, but my casual observation is that folks work hard at what inspires them, and that work ethic is not an absolute, but a situational, sometimes.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 09:15 am (UTC)Perhaps it is better, when thinking large, to build one's pyramid one brick at a time.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 09:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 09:59 am (UTC)I would guess that for most, "existing talentedly" is not enough. There has to be some sort of channel and a receiver of sorts.
Now I'm blathering. Sorry.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 10:13 am (UTC)A "talented" person bewails the manifold shortcomings of humanity.
I'm blathering now, but blathering is an essential part of my writing style. I guess I believe that creative people should go back to basics, be goal-oriented, accept the
evils of the need to self-market, accept the importance of simple contentment once in a while. The other way does not lead to greater artistry. I just think it leads to frustration. But I'm not an "artist", in any sense of the word, so I'm just positing thoughts on an artificial construct.
I am all for people trying to "free themselves". Surely that's part of creativity. But if creativity becomes just another prison, then we're out of the realm of art, and into the realm of the Twilight Zone, or psychology, or something.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 11:20 am (UTC)On the other side--the less talented, find more success (their ideas are less original, less threatening to other mediocre talent that makes up the world) and so they are praised, and rewarded, and their success begets more success.
that's how I see it.... and my entire life has been a very tough battle with a very real depression. I give myself credit though`-- a lot actually-- because I fight hard, and I do everything within my power to get better and turn it around.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 11:44 am (UTC)I think it's a bit easy to suggest that success only comes to
second-raters because society as a whole is so second-rate, altho in popular culture, I can think of hundreds, if not thousands, of examples which support your argument.
But I believe, based only on the limited inference which quite assiduous reading of your journal gives me, that you suffer from a very real depression which would be just as real even if all the externals in your life were aligned as in an ideal world they ought to be. The negatives arising from that depression might be somewhat ameliorated by more creative recognition, but I think the core issues are medical, not something a loving art fan base could give you.
I always think how glad I am that, frustrating as doctors can be, you do seek medical resolutions to your medical issues. You and I have both known, I'm sure, dozens of people too "artistic" and "complex" to hunt this relief.
As paleolithic as current meds wisdom is, I have just known too many people who have been helped by meds--and too many
people who believe they are suffering from creative angst when in fact they are suffering from chemical imbalance.
The research on artistry v. bipolar, artistry v. schizophrenia, etc. of which I'm aware makes this a more complex notion than any of my comments here have/can address. But I think that while the idea of a downward spiral based on the paradox of true creativity v. non-appreciation and depression has some merit to it, I do think that there's chemical aspects of these things which make that too simple an explanation. That doesn't mean it's wrong, exactly, just one part of the elusive elephant we all try to describe with blindfolds on.
Ultimately, for the kind of encouragement you'll really need, you'll have to look to yourself and a handful of
people you respect, no matter how much acclaim or lack thereof you have in life. I don't think that your immense progress of late with your theaters is because you've
"gotten" some new audience. I think it's because you know you're doing your true work. That's a gift few people have.
Sadly, you have to share that gift with genuine, clinical depression. I have no magic words of comfort for that.
But I do believe that the effort to write a grant app., to keep making theaters, and, yes, perhaps to even sell things someday, is worth making, even in an uncaring and difficult world. Imagine if you felt impelled to make those theaters, but didn't, because you were too resigned to do so. What a
less rich world this would be.
I think your real depression is something a bit outside the construct of my post. But I also think that external effort, even in light of depression, is still a good, and maybe a very good, thing.
no subject
You caution against over-simplification, but my major beef with this post, and some of the comments, is that you seem to be advocating over-simplification. Life is complex, people are complex. There are no prescriptive rules (oh god, now I'm quoting cataloging doctrine...)--do x and succeed; do y and fail. What are the standards by which we're to measure? Do we even know what "success" is? Ugh. I find this so frustrating for myself. I know I'm being incoherent. It's just that this is something I've been trying to figure out for a long time.
backpedaling from the bobcat icon
Date: 2002-07-29 01:09 pm (UTC)I looked at some articles collected under the hyperlink at the bottom of the page for "creativity" at www.lorenbennet.org, but this was just a quick found-through-google bit to try to get Jamison in reference. My understanding is that the creativity/depression link is still an open research issue. I also believe that my own knowledge of this field fills roughly a thimbleful. I have never let ignorance prevent me from posting posts, though.
They are often oversimplified, and sometimes oversimplified on purpose to raise an issue. Sadly, for me, the oversimplification also always represents some facet of my views on something.
In both the post and the comments, I posit the simple notion that focusing on what matters and focusing on achievement
are important, and that sometimes we psyche ourselves, for want of a better term, from accomplishing those tasks.
I am the first to admit (I thought in my reply to
Life is complex. People are complex. I do not believe that necessarily means that there are no proscriptive rules.
Take strychnine, one dies. Quit one's job, one receives no paycheck. But the ways to survive are very complex,
granted, and that may essentially mean that any "simple" rule is by definition wrong.
But it's a paralysis, isn't it? A no escape sort of thing.
If nothing "works", then we never achieve anything. If everyone is so vastly different, then we learn nothing from anything. I'm using hyperbole, for emphasis. But I do believe that there's a forest among the trees, and we don't always have to be lost in the trees. I was trying to tell Mars that I think that people who are depressed can't fit in the Horatio Algerish notions I put forward, because depression is its own challenge. But I do advocate trying to simplify one's life. I don't think it's possible, really. But it's a struggle worth undertaking.
Again, though, I accept that this may be offensive, and my intention was not to offend.
creativity, intelligence and depression
Date: 2002-07-29 01:28 pm (UTC)Although I can't prove it scientifically, I think there are many environmental reasons why creativity and depression can go together.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 01:28 pm (UTC)Some people are capable of effecting great changes in themselves, they have a talent for growth and transformation. Some people have a more rigid personality structure and don't change much. Some people think they are oh-so-clever and fall by the wayside due to impracticality and dreaminess, as many of your examples provide. Some are equally as arrogant but practical and crafty and come up in the world.
Some of us are by nature highly sensitive, talented creatively but not natural at self promotion. Some highly sensitives are great self promoters. Depression can be addressed as a physical malady. Depression can be approached as a spiritual crisis. Depression can be alleviated in both instances, or not, depending on the nature of the individual.
Personal experiences, abilities and aptitudes are so unique, configured in as many different forms as there are people.
reigning in the bobcat
Date: 2002-07-29 01:56 pm (UTC)Please don't think I'm the least bit angry/offended/dismayed! I'm not. Just venting--not at you, with you!
no subject
no subject
I do however like the last paragraph. I find that as time goes on, I enjoy the company of people who are not intellectuals or super-successful in the monetary sense but who are simply good at something. I tend to avoid intellectuals and what-not now - they bore me.
Even when I was in graduate school, I would hang out with the machinist across the hall as much as with the others up in the faculty lounge. Now, I'd much rather hang out with an old guy who knows blacksmithing than a guy who has made millions selling stucco mix to building contractors. In my perfect world, I could play golf with an old blacksmith. Oh well, if not in this life then perhaps in the next...
As usual, I'm off on a bit of a tangent but I'm not too concerned about it. My only concern was trying to find shades of myself in some of your descriptions. Finding no obvious ones, I wandered off on a separate train of thought.
Carry on...talk amongst yourselves...I'll be over here mumbling to myself...
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 02:24 pm (UTC)i can't believe i actually did get a comment in on this one!!!
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 02:25 pm (UTC)You're right, I'm miserable either way. I like to recall an interview with Paul Simon (who also suffered a lot of neglect and abuse from his father as a child)-- he, with all the accolades and trophies, considers himself to be a hopeless failure. Even through all the *success*--he can't stop seeing himself as he was told he was in childhood. Powerful scars--some are just hard to heal.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 02:48 pm (UTC)You're still the poster boy for doing things right.
I like the machinists, too.
Re: reigning in the bobcat
Date: 2002-07-29 02:55 pm (UTC)That could be your user bio. That, plus some real writing talent, is what makes your journal such a pleasure to read.
Liberal in politics and ideas, conservative in fundamental outlook and approach. And you're not even from Minnesota!
Misplaced at birth!
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 02:55 pm (UTC)Re: creativity, intelligence and depression
Date: 2002-07-29 02:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 03:36 pm (UTC)When I was in high school, my friend and I had a falling out with another friend of ours. He promised us that one day "he would make more money than both of us combined." To me, the comment was unprovoked, and rather silly - but I knew the place that it was coming from, having made a similar comment before.
Gurdonark, I think, is right on this one. I see the danger not in believing that one is "more clever" than the next guy, but in comparing your success relative to them. The most "successful" people I know are those who never have to remind you of how successful they are. I think the same applies to "cool".
I realize that these comments are rather off the point from Gurdonark's original sentiment. I see a relation, however. The things we see as being our strongpoints become crutches in times of weakness. These crutches may help us temporarily, but our reliance upon them limits our ability to grow. We begin to define ourselves according to what we begin to expect of ourselves and as such, begin to limit ourselves accordingly. Perhaps we are less willing to take risks when we don't see the potential outcomes in line with our own image of how things should be... our "cleverness" (or hubris) won't allow it - and we have limited ourselves again.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 03:50 pm (UTC)I remember once expressing to someone that one particular life strategy has "always" worked for me, when that person said "x problem you're confronting now shows it really doesn't". That stuck with me. Patterns. Shapes. Grooves.
Ruts. All very complex, all very simple.
The patterns of randomness
Date: 2002-07-29 05:34 pm (UTC)Re: The patterns of randomness
Hey! You've hit the nail on the head. That's precisely what I wish my journal to do.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 06:21 pm (UTC)I believe that people can change significantly over time. I've been an extremely shy and quiet person as a child and teenager. Yet now, I've learn to become more outgoing. I have still some way to change (in terms of getting intimidated by others) and I believe I can keep changing in that way.
Yes, there are people who may not change over time. As you say, it's to do with the goals you set yourself.
Re: The patterns of randomness
Date: 2002-07-29 06:58 pm (UTC)Re: The patterns of randomness
Date: 2002-07-29 08:08 pm (UTC)I enjoy the seemingly random, and all sorts of imposed orders upon it, but I never was very good at math.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 08:11 pm (UTC)I like to think I change, but some of my friends assure me I'm the same person I was at 17. One of my old college friends, though, insists I'm completely different. I don't know, but I know I feel 17 but sadly, act 42. OTOH, when I was 17, I usually acted 42.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 10:36 pm (UTC)It's important to find the "child" in us all and don't lose that! I love to have a good play now and then.
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 11:13 pm (UTC)from a fellow fighter
no subject
Date: 2002-07-29 11:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-07-30 03:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-07-30 03:53 am (UTC)But it does interest me.
Re: The patterns of randomness
Date: 2002-07-30 05:18 am (UTC)But I like the way you put it much better as a description!
no subject
Date: 2002-07-30 09:46 am (UTC)i am fortunate to have myself and friends in this case who make marvelous art and have lived through the pathologizing and other's needs to medicated them for their own discomfort. i have had good mentors in this realm and have learned where to share my darkest moments so that others are not "frightened"
i had a therapist once describe me to someone else as "most people are comfortable with this range of emotion (holds hands about 2 feet apart), lynn however is perfectly comfortable with this range (holds hands about 6 feet apart)"