Another thing that has become clear to me in the last couple years of blogging: I am not originally creative. Instead, I would call myself synthetically creative. Rather than making up something from whole cloth, in writing I prefer to take things from two or more sources and join them in a (hopefully) new way. That’s why I enjoy taking a news article and joining it with a quote from a book or movie. Neither is original, but I’ve brought them together in a unique way.
I’ve often heard the phrase that everyone has a book in them. This is said as an encouragement for people to write. As I’ve realized my strength in synthetic creativity, I’ve come to the conclusion that if I do have a book in me, it most likely isn’t a novel. It probably is a plagiaristic cobbling of two other books. Maybe I could write Oliver Copperfield….
December 19th, 2005 at 11:44 am
I’ve been mulling this one over. Ultimately, we are all only syncretically creative. There is only one originally creative being. So don’t feel bad. Just make sure Oliver Copperfield is better than either of the two originals and your fine.
(I know you said synthetically, and they mean the same thing, but syncretically comes first in the dictionary and I was too lazy to keep looking. Plus, it’s a word less people know).
December 20th, 2005 at 11:38 pm
Somehow I doubt I’ll ever write anything better than either of those literary masterpieces. But thanks for the comment, John.
Best regards,
Knilram