This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
I wondered what the editors of this page think about introducing subsections to this article that would more clearly differentiate "genius of place" from the Romantic concept of "genius". I am linking to this page from Mary: A Fiction and would like to add some more context that is relevant for that book and others like it. Awadewit | talk15:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Awadewit. Guess who.
Anyway, you're right, of course, that the discussion ties up together. My own goal was to show the slow transition of "genius" as daemon to "genius" as demon to "genius" as gift and how really seamlessly "genius of the place" becomes "portable genius of the individual." They seem to exist at the same time. There was a book I read a long, long, long time ago that seemed profound at the time (i.e. it might be trivial or obvious to me now) called The Religion of Art (hmm, I only see a 1990 via Google, and I read this around 1980, and it wasn't in mint condition at the time, so I suppose this is about a 1974-6 book) that did some of the groundwork of tracing the "poet as vates" to the "poet as shaman," and I thought that would be a fantastic adjunct, as it picks up the twists of "genius" after this article leaves off.
