Pop quiz: You have to be crazy to be truly artistic and/or creative. (T/F)
It's something I've been thinking about lately. When I was growing up back in the Stone Ages *cough* I mean, in the 80s, that was somewhat the prevailing view.
The truly creative, artistic people were all total nutjobs. Some writers even went so far as to cultivate a crazy persona to be taken more seriously. Remember this post?
Why am I thinking about this? Two reasons. First (and most importantly), I'm trying to rationalize my own nutty behavior as of late. It's all that latent creativity coming out. (Right?)
But also, thanks to Nathan Bransford, I watched Stephenie Meyer on Oprah, and she's just the most normal-seeming person on the planet. Jo Rowling, too.
These ladies don't seem crazy, but they've each created something that everyone loves. Perhaps you would argue that their books aren't particularly original or creative. Or artistic.
In the case of Twilight, I can see much borrowing from the classics. But in the case of Rowling the same can be said. She reimagined many old hero stories and myths--the Alchemist's stone? I think both ladies are great writers and demonstrate much creativity. Yet they're both just average, stay-at-home moms.
So what's the verdict? True or false?
I know, crazy is a charged term. I hesitate to describe anyone, myself included, that way. But there is something different.
Maybe it's more a matter of learning to let go. Losing a grip on self-discipline, schedule keeping, fitness regimines, keeping up with family events, the appearance of actually listening when someone's talking to you...
I guess the way most writers act when they're chasing down an idea does make them appear somewhat crazy. Or air-headed--fer sure--a bit like those absent-minded professors.
Artists can be the same way. Musicians just hum a lot and tap on everything.
I'm going to answer False, but I think the appearance would lead the uninitiated to say True. You?
Just some fun before I head back into the revisions cave--here I go again. Have a great week, reader- and writer-friends. Til Thursday~ <3
It's something I've been thinking about lately. When I was growing up back in the Stone Ages *cough* I mean, in the 80s, that was somewhat the prevailing view.
The truly creative, artistic people were all total nutjobs. Some writers even went so far as to cultivate a crazy persona to be taken more seriously. Remember this post?
Why am I thinking about this? Two reasons. First (and most importantly), I'm trying to rationalize my own nutty behavior as of late. It's all that latent creativity coming out. (Right?)
But also, thanks to Nathan Bransford, I watched Stephenie Meyer on Oprah, and she's just the most normal-seeming person on the planet. Jo Rowling, too.
These ladies don't seem crazy, but they've each created something that everyone loves. Perhaps you would argue that their books aren't particularly original or creative. Or artistic.
In the case of Twilight, I can see much borrowing from the classics. But in the case of Rowling the same can be said. She reimagined many old hero stories and myths--the Alchemist's stone? I think both ladies are great writers and demonstrate much creativity. Yet they're both just average, stay-at-home moms.
So what's the verdict? True or false?
I know, crazy is a charged term. I hesitate to describe anyone, myself included, that way. But there is something different.
Maybe it's more a matter of learning to let go. Losing a grip on self-discipline, schedule keeping, fitness regimines, keeping up with family events, the appearance of actually listening when someone's talking to you...
Artists can be the same way. Musicians just hum a lot and tap on everything.
I'm going to answer False, but I think the appearance would lead the uninitiated to say True. You?
Just some fun before I head back into the revisions cave--here I go again. Have a great week, reader- and writer-friends. Til Thursday~ <3