The word "genius" was originally used to refer to a guardian spirit, and it was once more common to "have a genius" than to "be a genius."
The word is believed to be derived from the word "Djinni" (or "Genie"): the singular version of "Djinn." The Djinn are a race of supernatural entities popularized by Arabian culture. Some believe that they're indisputably evil; others believe that they're generally good; but nearly all believers agree that they have free-will and can intervene with the material world.
Although officially recognized as "Djinn" in Arabia, nearly every culture from Ancient Sumer to modern-day U.S.A. recognize these beings in some shape or form. Interestingly, some Middle Eastern tribes also have superstitions involving "Ghuls," which English would later adopt as "ghouls."
(See also: Mothman, Shadow People, Alien Abductions, Sleep Paralysis, Schizophrenic Hallucinations, Every Religious Parable Ever,- the evidence is jaded, but some of these are eerily similar when you really look at them.)
As expected, even some conventional "geniuses" vaguely allude to this concept of possession. Michelangelo never sculpted a statue; he just erased the block of marble around the statue that "God" had already sculpted. Samuel Tyler Coleridge was reluctant to claim authorship for "Kubla Khan," claiming that he was just a medium for whatever did write it (Apparently taking a ton of opium helps open the door to the Astral Plane, or a Lower State of Mind, or Hell, or something).
This concept is also the reason that we refer to ethanol-based alcohols as "spirits." These alcohols are banned in the Middle East, as they believe that the consumer can be possessed by "spirits." If you've ever been drunk and awake after 4AM, you'd be inclined to agree.
Therefore, "genius" doesn't necessarily refer to someone with superior intellect. It may, however, be used to refer to someone who is possessed by an ethereal entity.
In conclusion, you don't need relativity theories or sonnets written in iambic-pentameter in order to "be a genius." Just a magic lamp and a fifth of vodka should do the trick.
Points:
Time spent:
Canary word: Present
Possible AI signals:
Original Text:
Are you sure you want to delete this comment? This cannot be undone.
Mark this comment as a review? Points will be awarded to the poster.
Your comment was posted, but it wasn’t long enough to count as a review. Reviews need about four complete sentences (at least 250 characters). Try writing another review that explains your thoughts in more detail — the author will appreciate it, and you’ll earn points for it.
125,020 Literary Works • 672,861 Reviews
Hello.
This is an interesting premise for a joke, but it feels like you've crammed too many random facts in here to deliver a smooth punchline. You've added on stuff about ghuls, and sleep paralysis, and how many mythologies contain something about possession.
While the latter could turn into something that does reflect how this is a widespread phenomenon, you don't really bridge that gap very well, in my opinion. By not really hammering down on one point, you leave us with a bunch of really cool random facts that don't go anywhere.
Even a humorous essay should have a certain amount of focus, where every point you're making drives home a single point. Humorous essays also get much funnier if you expand the point in full detail, allowing you to really dive into why this is so hilarious.
All in all, this was funny but felt very thin and scattered. Give the points that lead to the punchline more weight and meat to them, while cutting the fat that doesn't drive to the punchline.
Hope this helps! Let me know if you have any questions or comments.
~Rosey
Hello!
I enjoyed reading this piece, as it both amused me and I learned something new! And isn't learning new things what we should all strive for?
The style is straightforward and doesn't beat around the bush any to get to the point, which is quite appreciated after reading reams upon reams of poetic metaphors.
As an essay, this does well as well in terms of information. The examples put forth are specific and relevant and add to the point being made, as opposed to empty conjecture.
I won't try to critique the content here, because firstly it seems like a bother and secondly it came across as if you knew what you were talking about. So let's talk style instead!
There is a segment written in parenthesis that capitalizes every point on the list. Mothman and Shadow People (arguably), should be capitalized, as it's a name, but the rest, f.ex, schizophrenic hallucinations should not be. Quick fix there. This same segment also uses the statement 'the evidence is jaded'. What? What does that mean?
This is written like an essay, yet it lacks a thesis statement. I appreciate wanting to get straight to the fun bits as fast as possible, but without a grounding opener, this reads more like a comedy monologue low on jokes. It should take only a sentence more to fix that, one way or another.
In conclusion, this piece amused *and* entertained with a refreshingly straightforward and cohesive style, but came jarringly hard in the beginning.