Post Your Entry!
MONDAY, JULY 04, 2011
For there to be Creative writing there has to be non-creative writing and the only non-creative writing I can think of is writing that has to do with the law and even then the writing gets pretty creative. There are no creative-painters, creative-musicians, creative-interior-designers or any other artform that require the word "creative" to be hyphenated before it. Because every other art form on the planet has a steeper learning curve than writing.

It's the first main thing you learn in school. You might learn to make crafts or sing "Mary had a little lamb" but no teacher will hold you back if you don't learn those other art forms. So creative writers try to distinguish themselves from all their essay-writing friends by calling themselves "creative" writers. The problem with creative writers is that most are just trying to achieve a "voice." Just like every rock band tries to get a unique sound. Then they stick to that sound/voice for every album/book afterwards. So, over time, what makes a creative writer's work different from that of someone writing a report for his company?

Anyway, I have an answer to all this in case you think I'm just rambling. And, in the case that you were following along, then I'll leave you to fill in all the rest of the logic that got me to this conclusion:
Creative writers should just continuously make themselves more anonymous. One day submit a work under a pen name. Another day give complete credit of their latest work to someone they hate. Another day they just submit under their own name but the work would just be a full Banking Balance spreadsheet, and they can call it their own masterpiece. Another day just trap a bunch of your best critics and make them write for you and then give them bribes to write even better reviews of the work they just wrote themselves.

Play with their mentality and your fans' mentality. Then you'll never stick to a single voice and always achieve new ones without anyone stopping you and reminding you of who you really are.



What a creative post...

... I can't help but wonder who really posted this - was it Alamir, or someone trying to be creative...



I am also confused...

Are you attempting to make a point, or actually write a "Creative Writing" post? Because either way the piece fails.

Your argument is based on loose generalization: you base your main point off of the concept of a "formula" rather than an actually "voice" and you fail to bring the reader to your level reasoning (any level, for that matter) or logic to back up such allegations. I'm not saying you should spoon feed the reader with this, but you seem to be banking on the idea that the reader can follow your train of thought without the need for you to explain yourself.

However, this is where I start to think that you're attempting to be "Creative." If this is meant to be a Creative Writing post, rather than a comment on Creative Writing, then I can see how it is meant to be a statement on poetry and prose and their esoteric nature. By only allowing the reader a few shallow bits of your logic (and just allowing them to fill in the blanks) you're displaying the frustration that others have with most "Creative Writing."

At least I hope that was what you were getting at. Because you give absolutely now logic to your "answer" in the end. This could be considered a swell self-reflective character piece -- having the character, as the narrator, write an essay about an artistic form. If it is, in fact, a piece of prose, it is too brief and is lacking any sense of direction. It is incomplete.

I'm curious about this, because this doesn't seem like your bag.



Replying to SAMAEL:
Well this was creative writing (which is why I put it in the Creative Writing section).
But if I failed at Creative writing then I have succeeded in satisfying my goal to fail that I wrote in the conclusion. But I accept that one would have to agree with my conclusion in order for it to be seen as a success (as most cases are.) So, if I failed in giving a good conclusion...then I guess I just fail.
If you'd like me to break down the logic though, I will. Basically I say that there should be no such thing as a "Creative" writer, let's label it X. Then I conclude that if someone wants to be X then they should make their best attempt at being not a creative writer. So if you want to be X, then you need to be "Not X."
Nowhere, would this logic make sense unless it's about being "Creative." That is, X= "Creative." Because to create one must make something that doesn't already exist (or else it would become "repeating" and we'd all be "Repeating Writers"). So non-existence must precede X. Therefore, if you want to make X then you must make sure that X doesn't exist. Similarly, if you want to be X-writer you should make sure that you're first a non-existant-writer.
For example, let's say Dickens creates "Oliver Twist". He's the creator. Now if a second creator made "Oliver Twist" then he'd be plagiarizing. If he made something very similar, he'd be copying and if it was only vaguely similar we'd say that he was "borrowing," "inspired by," ..etc. So for the writer to be truly creative he must create something that's not like Oliver Twist. And if he made it good enough to read, then he may even be considered a good Creative writer.

...Let me give another example, I just read a book that a lot of people are hyping up as being the next best piece of fiction since James Joyce, it's called Natasha. The more I read it, the more I notice how a lot of things are just "borrowed" from other great writers. His story-line was blatantly taken from Joyce's "Dubliners" and his writing style reminded me of a number of writers such as Vonnegut.Anyway, by the end of the book I thought "good read but too over-hyped." And I started realizing that a lot of it was maybe due to the fact that it was just a bunch of influences put together and nothing really "creative." I totally accept that we can be influenced by things to create new stuff... but I was looking at a collage rather than an original creation.

Anyway, I'd hate to write more and defend my piece because I didn't put that much thought into what I wrote it was written late last night and I just sent it off. If I failed, I failed, and I'm willing to move on. But I never really planned to succeed. My last lines said to play with your reader's mentality and both of you responded that you were "confused." I said to create stuff that no one expected and you ended by saying "this doesn't seem like your bag." Which would also mean that I just created a new identity for a common reader like I said a Creative writer aught to.
Whether or not I succeeded in entertaining is another question....but judging by the comments, I may have created something original.



I think the piece is a bit incoherent. Creative, maybe, but incoherent.

I'd only add that, yes, you're right to point out the strangeness of slapping the word "creative" in front of "writer", since no other art form or craft does so; but you're wrong (or just oblivious to the obvious answer) when you ask, "...over time, what makes a creative writer's work different from that of someone writing a report for his company?"

The obvious answer, I think, is that you can write a story or an essay or even a news article in a "creative" way, but if you're going to write a report, any "creativity" (use of metaphor, simile, alliteration, rhyme, metre, elaborate description, etc.) would probably distract from whatever it is you're reporting about. An instruction manual, to use an extreme example, requires no creativity, because a literal description has to be straight forward and unambiguous. Using an analogy would inevitably be misleading because every analogy eventually breaks down, that is, when it's taken literally.

Just my thoughts...

Forget your password?
Don't have an account? Sign Up, it's free!
Most Discussed Articles Top Articles Top Writers