Creativity is being able to see the world from perspectives that either no longer exist, never existed in the first place, or don't exist yet. I seem to have an abudance of inspiration but very little talent. Ideas come to me at the oddest moments but actually 'creating' from them is a seemingly futile process. My 'writer's soul' might be broken...
Creativity isn't real. It's an illusion. You take a little bit of everything in your life, put it into a new idea, and call it a 'new' idea. There has never been an original thought since time started. Even the guy who invented the stone wheel got the idea from a round rock rolling down the hill. I suppose creativity is seeing the links, or making up links between ideas in life, and putting it down onto paper.
Creativity in that sense is just breaking rules; taking an unlawful stance towards common conception. I think there's more to it though. You have to - at the least - have a destination as well. I would not dare to reduce it to a single concept.
Creativity largely consists of making an intuitive leap to link two or more collections of thoughts in an unexpected way.
Nature V nurture on acquiring creativity... Hmmm. I think I go with social stimulation: we learn by our surroundings. Bring a kid up out of context to the rest of the world, he wouldn't know how creativity is expressed, let alone understand it. It would have to be taught. Saying that, there has to be some innate capacity to learn, otherwise we wouldn't learn in the first place: it has to be inbred. So maybe it's a bit of both, I think. An interesting way to answer this would be to ask people define creativity themselves. Do they think inside the norm by going for classic writing (and are they being guided by existing perceptions of someone's judgement of creativity here) or do they prefer the freedom of, say, writing wall art (and so see creativity as working outside of the established norms).
I don't think you learn creativity, you just learn how to use it. And you do that by trying. Simple as that. If you're starting late it'll take more effort, but most people have a least a little foothold. All it is is using the other half of our brain than the world typically demands. Nate
Several aspects of it can be taught, if you see it as a craft, like I see it. But the love and commitment it takes cannot be taught, I think. So it's yes- and no.
Yes. Yes it can. With a dutiful teacher who gives good, harsh critique and demands that the student practice, creative writing can be taught just like any other skill. There is an element of talent in there, but there is an element of talent in all things. Natural skill can't be taught. Real skill- the kind that's built up through practice and care- can.
Absolutely it can. Obviously so in certain ways--improving your vocabulary, mastering grammar, widening your knowledge of literary tradition, conventions and styles through extensive reading. In other aspects--imagination, creativity, the ability to create and evoke characters or settings--it may be more difficult to develop a talent where none exists, but I think with practice and study (and a great deal of effort), it can be learnt.
Anyone can learn how to play the piano, but there's only one Mozart. Natural talent really just gives you a head start when developing a skill. So if two people work equally hard, than the one with the biggest head start will likely stay in the lead. However, hard work is still the larger factor. The other factor is that only certain kinds of people would be willing to put in all of the hard work required for certain skills, and how much work you are willing to put in is usually proportional to how much you like doing something. Therefore, the biggest factor in determining creative writing skill is simply how much you love creative writing. That kind of love can be learned by an individual through life, but I don't think it can be taught by someone else. But a person who really loves it, can certainly be taught it.
Of course it can. This falls under The Universe Is Not Universally Fair law. Some are born with a faculty for the creative, others must work at it, others must struggle. It is not impossible, just unequally easy.
The mechanics of it can be taught, but it's the creativity of the person naturally which makes a creative writer. My creative nonfiction teacher always says, "I can teach you to write, but I can't teach you to be deep. I can't teach you to feel."
of course it can, since it is... but, as noted above, only the technical aspects can be 'taught'... the talent, imagination, and ability to learn those skills that it takes to be a good creative writer can't be...
I like what Wreybies said. Everyone can write, some are just seemingly more talented at it. There is however, no "elite" group of people who are innately good at writing and the rest of us are just plebes, struggling to catch up to their natural ability. That would be idiotic. Everyone thinks, everyone feels. With proper training and instruction, as well as dedication and motivation, anyone can be a great writer.
I disagree. Like the others have said, there's more to writing than just the technical aspects. Some people write their entire lifetimes but don't produce anything good. There are elements of creativity and imagination that just can't be taught.
Nonsense. That is just people wanting to think they are unique. Creativity and imagination cannot be taught but they can be nurtured and strengthened through instruction/aid. To say that some people are just born "creative" and others are not is nonsensical elitism. Everyone has the potential to be good. If they aren't, it isn't some fluke of birth, it isn't because the writing gods parcelled out a lesser share of "creativity" to that particular person and that is that. It is because they aren't dedicated enough, they haven't received the correct instruction for their mode of thinking or a million other reasons. However, the potential is there. People just have to be prepared to work harder. To some it comes easier, for whatever reason. Maybe they have more neural connections in a particular region of their brain? Who cares. The point is, if something doesn;t come easy to you, work harder, seek instruction that fits your particular brand of thought. Maybe you are more abstract and you have been taught to write in a manner that is more concrete. Or vice versa.
I definitely believe it can be taught, (the craft that is). I'm fairly new at writing myself, and am doing some "self-teaching" at the moment. I am reading a text on The Craft Of Narrative Writing. The book points out HUNDREDS of writing techniques I never picked up on as a reader. Practicing these techniques for only a few weeks I look back at some of my older work and shake my head. I'm getting better already. HAHA! Don't get me wrong there's a long way for me to go But the passion and discipline comes from within the individual for sure.
True, but there are some people who might study a foreign language for their entire lifetime and still be rubbish at it. That doesn't mean that foreign languages can't be taught, it just means that aptitude (and other factors) can limit how good a person gets.
I agree with digitig. Someone can have a lot of knowledge but still lack ability. Like any other skill, of course it can be taught. If not, writer's wouldn't be constantly urged to hone their craft by practicing.
I never said some people are born more creative than others. I only said that there are elements of creativity that must come from the individual. For example, if someone else imagines the plot and characters for me, then that doesn't make me a fiction writer. Besides, if you claim that everyone has the potential to be good, then how come there aren't more Shakespeares? Or Einsteins? I just want to point out that if a person can speak one language, than he can easily speak another with a lifetime of study. Besides, when a person is learning a language, he patterns his speech around that of his instructor. That's something that's not good in creative writing, where the emphasis is on the style of the individual. That's actually one reason I don't like creative writing classes. They tend to produce cookie-cutter writers.
Perhaps a better question might be, "Do we get results when we teach or take a creative writing course?" Because we can certainly teach grammar, punctuation, vocabulary, the creative arch, how to avoid deux ex machina and Mary Sue characters, and whatnot. The question is, "Do you benefit from taking a course like this?" And there are two schools of thought in the reply. One school says, "No - you will not really benefit from a creative writing class." Meaning that you could be better served by using the time to read and write, to practice the craft. It's also true that creative arcs and similar concepts are theoretically easy to learn about; going on to the TV Tropes wiki will teach you quite a bit there, although Wikipedia might be better as it's less of a time suck. You may be able to get "deadlines" and specific projects for yourself by going to a writing class, but that won't help you in the long run. Would you brag that you had taught someone "carpentry" in a shop class if they never touched a saw or ruler outside your class? Would you brag that you had taught yourself how to juggle if you tried it once at a county fair, did an okay job, and then stopped -- or nearly stopped, so that you would bring the juggling beanbags out at special occasions, but didn't normally pursue that hobby for fun? The other school says, "Yes, it helps." Being forced (in order to get a good grade) to write in a format which may not be familiar to you will expand your writing ability. Creative writing classes frequently require you to read short stories, which is a useful resource, and will not only teach you about the terms "characterization," "plot," "storyline," "deux ex machina," and so on, but put them into context for you. By making you write on a schedule, creative writing classes may show you that yes, you CAN make yourself write on a deadline, which is a valuable skill which may very well stick after the class is over. And classes can inspire you, get your creative juices flowing, so that you'll write more on your own during the course (and hopefully afterward) even though some of your time is taken up with the class. My own opinion, perhaps unsurprisingly, is that it depends on the person. Some folks are good at self-motivating and self-educating. Some aren't, and benefit from being forced by a writing class to learn about the craft, how to stick to deadlines, how to look at their own work, and how to compare their work to that of published authors. An example: It is extremely useful to be able to self-edit one's work, and while at this point I don't know how much of what I know can be attributed to what I've learned from "How-To" books or classes, I suspect that the single most useful chapter in Steven King's On Writing is the one where he shows the reader several pages of a first draft, and then edits it, cutting out unneeded adverbs, tightening prose, jotting down an additional descriptive sentence for a major recurring character, and so on. You don't usually get to see such a demonstration if you don't take writing classes or read how-to books, and I suspect that I owe a great deal of my current confidence to the fact that I have seen first drafts edited for reasons which are clear and understandable by me.
I'm in a Creative Writing class right now. It's good, I think I'm learning a little more about how to properly do a story, but my teacher does one thing wrong. Teacher: Write a story on this topic! Me: Ok!*goes to start on it* Teacher: Hold on! You have to outline it before you start! You can't start it without an outline! WTF, sure, some things may need an outline, but it's better if you let the story flow >_>. It's like one of my favorite quotes says, "Most teachers will tell you that you need to make a careful plan of your story before starting. This is because most teachers do not write stories."
