Bingley,
It would be good to see the rule spelled out from several grammar texts. And then we could argue with the rule as stated. As I wrote above, there are exceptions to rules and this may well be a case where an exception is the case. Technically, if I'm reading this whole thread correctly, by virtue of the fact that Toni Morrison's functions as an adjective modifying the noun and subject genius, there is a strict problem regarding the use of her in this sentence. But many of us here disagree with the problem.
I've been running this rule over and over in my head--and keep banging up against a wall of common sense. If the placement and function of the referent is so important, then what about sentences on an imaginary SAT such as:
1. Her decision to leave school left her hopeless.
Well, is this sentence incorrect or not? We don't even have the embedded name here functioning as an adjective.
2. Chalkley told her to consider a new career.
In the above sentence, we don't have a referent at all. We must assume that this sentence has been culled out of an ongoing narrative. Is the sentence ungrammatical? No.
And then there's your sentence, Bingley, which certainly meets the stipulations of this dastardly rule that we still need to see spelled out in all its ramifications. But I know you know that your sentence, though showing Toni Morrison's functioning as the subject, is less satisfying than the original with Toni Morrison's genius.
The situation is an aggravating one because we know that the original sentence is grammatically correct and that this so-called rule is where the problem lies. The rule--if we ever get to see it spelled out--will probably turn out to be incomplete and not adequately allowing for the flexibility and actual use of the language.
