Sometimes I think that what is "wrong with me"
is what is also whats "right with me"...the
thing that makes it hard for me to do well in
normal school...ADD seems to be the part that
works best for me in terms of originality and
creativity and uniqueness.
Do you feel that your creativity is a symptom
of a brainwave problem (in scientific circles)
or a celebration of things working particularly
right within you?
And what the heck do they know anyway?
And who ARE they to suppose they know
so much?
Bean counters with no imagination?
Beauty is in the eye/ear of the beholder.
I loved A Beautiful Mind....the line blurred
between brilliance and insanity. I can honestly
say there've been many times I felt like
I'd crossed that line.
Now that I take medication...its easier to
cope...but life is a bit less edgy and exciting.
I have enjoyed the comforts and peace of
sanity though!
Enough 3 AM rambling in Ohio.
Thanks for letting me share.

I once wrote a paper that shocked my psychology professor and my best friend (a currently-getting-her-Ph.D.-in-neuropsychology friend) in one shot. The paper was titled, "The Curse of Genius", and now, because I'm writing a novel with the same title and based on the same things, I cannot talk about its contents.

But I will say this: you're right. In my estimation, mental illnesses are not handicaps, but signs of genius that individuals are never taught how to harness properly because society looks upon them as "diseased", and so, like a river flowing without banks, these sparks of genius becomes handicaps, wandering where they choose instead of being applied to solve problems. (All that's in the paper...I'm safe talking about that. )

But that's about all I can say without typing the whole paper, or without going into more detail on the subject of my other novel.

It is not a "novel" idea that individuals who are "gifted" in certain areas aren't necessarily "blessed" but instead, are actually just "abnormal."

There are those folks who will perform a few standard deviations below the average on an IQ test, and there are those who will perform a few standard deviations above. It's not necessarily "better" to be in the latter group!

I would venture to say all musicians have some kind of at least emotional "quirks" and that's why we are in music in the first place as an outlet to express those emotions that cannot otherwise be expressed.

I read a book a few years back, "Love is a Choice", regarding codependency. It's not just related to alcohol but can show up through obsessions with less obvious to outsiders things like a "shop-aholic", rage-aholic, computer-use-aholic, etc." But the book said if you put everyone on a scale of 1-10 everyone would fall in the category of codependency with varying degrees with no exemptions. I have yet to meet a single person void of emotional "quirks". A lot other than physical make-up is placed on us from this thing we call "life" and no one is exempt from it's influences.

Music is a wonderful, wonderful gift available to all as a great outlet for our emotional expression. We can express deep within what we can't with words.

Didn't Einstein have some kind of emotional thing that plagued him? I thought I heard something like this. Anyone care to list other famous people who rose to genius and greatness out of a mental or emotional "handi-cap"?

I think creative thought is a higher natural function of the human brain and therefore I do not regard any of these activities as in any way aberrant. Putting it another way, of the people I know whose habits I would term aberrant, most create absolutely nothing. Conversely, most creative people I know are pretty stable and happy with their abilities.

This question is a restatement of the old Wagner versus Milhaud issue. Wagner's philosophy was that only angst, conflict and struggle produce worthwhile art; Milhaud asserted the contrary. Both approaches might produce valid music but commonsense directs me to embrace Milhaud's position rather than Wagner's as my working philosophy.

I've never met a stable, happy and successful artist (of any kind)...and there are four of 'em on my Mom's side alone.

Maybe after they've struggled to make it, they may eventually find some method of finding stability and happiness, but until they reach such a ripe age, it is strife, largely, that gets them by.

That's interesting. Perhaps the proportion of Milhauds to Wagners is smaller than I thought. I have never bothered to strive in order to create and I am quite happy to work in isolation with no external gratification. "Making it" therefore has never concerned or interested me.

On the other hand, I may not be an artist at all in any accepted sense and so remain incapable of assessing the general situation. That hypothesis cannot be easily excluded.

I agree that "making it" is generally not the primary concern of any artist, but I would content that through such success, it leads, in many circumstances, to the possibility of a surface on which you can rest your feet. Interestingly, I've only ever seen artists take solace in the stability of a significant other. I've seen them try to wash away their inner struggles through any number of means, but obviously to little avail. In the ultimate struggle for understanding, I think artists find themselves understood the least.

I don’t believe in stereotyping people into a neat little package. I’ve known many musicians and composers and their outlook on life has been as diverse as any other individual in other fields.

Best, John

Good point! "laugh!"