Raw vs Shaped creativity

[I, Brian]

I'd like to raise a point for discussion:

"Raw creativity is not enough"

By this I would like to make the argument that, at least for many people, raw creativity alone will not be enough to make their works accepted by the traditional print publishing markets.

Specifically, it is easy for someone to write something they consider great - but then they demand than a multi-million pound industry therefore revolves around their own personal wishes, rather than the other way around.

More to the point, my argument is that, for many writers at least, raw cerativity needs to be specifically shaped towards the market being written for.

Some people may do that automatically and not realise it - they may be so immersed in the reading of commerical fiction that they subconsciously start imitating parts of the writing styles of others (I know I can be very easily influenced by writing styles, which is why I do not read fiction while writing a work).

However, for the rest of us, our raw creativity is simply that - raw - and that to face any remote prospect of seeing such work published, we must adapt that raw creativity by a thorough understanding of the writing markets targeted.

Yet is this even a valid argument?

A discussion, if you will...

[knivesout]

Ah, this is a fascinating and endlessly conentious question.

I think the distinction you are drawing really has two aspects to it:

• Raw creativity vs. the polished form of the same, which can be achieved only with time, experience and hard work. And lots of mistakes to learn from
• Your own creative vision vs. the state of the market/genre

The first distinction is really a progression we all go through constantly. When I started composing music, I had an instinctive feel for good chord changes and dynamics. I've picked up some theory over the years, and now I can use those instincts to far better effect. Plus, now that I know the 'rules' , to whatever extent, I am also free to break them far more purposefully. Coming to writing, there are writers like John Banville whom I cherish for the polish of their prose, and others like William Burroughs who work so well because their writing is so idiosyncratic, and even raw.

When it comes to the second point, it's not the simple 'art against commerce' conflict it may seem to be. Genre-focussed publishers encourage writers to be familiar with the genre, and this is not only to know 'what sells' , but also because you have to understand a genre to write in it, and to know what are the tropes or cliches that you would want to avoid.

But if it comes down to having to seriously dilute or change the way you write just to achieve a sale, I would suggest you stick to your guns and have a fallback plan for financial security. Very few of us can be bestselling literary stars - but perhaps it is better to stick to the integrity of your special vision (that is, if you are convinced your vision is special) than to become another read-alike run of the mill hack. There are of course many shades in between, which is why the topic is so contentious.

I chose not to pursue music as a career because I did not want to wind up doing sessions for film songs or playing Michael Learns To Rock numbers in hotels. I've managed to get some of my music out to a few people and it has been recieved well. I have no illusions that there are many more people out there with the inclination for my kind of music. At least, not enough to make it a living. I dont blame them, or myself.

I guess this applies to any form of creative expression.

Of course, just because you reject a path of compromise does not mean you assume you are perfect. Every artist, even a totally unknown and obscure one, ought to strive to constantly improve.

Well, this has rambled around a bit more freely than I intended. I hope that at least some of it made sense.

[littlemissattitude]

Interesting topic. I think knivesout has a point that there are two parts to the question posed.

Raw vs. polished is one question. I remember hearing a story, about Thomas Wolfe I think. It is said that if he hadn't had an editor, his writing could never have been published. He came up with brilliant bits of writing, but they just didn't fit together into a whole. So his editor served that function, making a whole out of the parts.

I think that, generally, the writer needs in most cases to be able to do most of that for him or herself. Maybe that's just my control-freak side talking, but outside of useful critique, I don't think I'd much like an editor treating my writing as discrete bits to be pushed around like in one of those children's puzzles where you have to move the tiles around in a frame to get them in correct numerical order. I'm not saying that an editor has no place - obviously editors serve a very useful function in the publishing world. However, it seems to me that the editor in that story was actually taking more of a creative role than I would be comfortable with. It also seems to me that part of being a writer is being able to string the parts into a coherent whole on one's own.

As for the other side of the question, which comes down to vision vs. commercial potential, I think that both sides (writer and publisher, represented by the editor) have to be willing to compromise to some extent. This is something I learned when I was on the staff of a community college newspaper back in the 80s. Great lessons in the art of compromise were learned there, from both sides - as a writer and in the semester I spent as managing editor of the paper. As a writer, you have to learn when it is important to stand your ground on an issue and when it is important to be willing to give in (as well as to what extent to give in).

In a broader way, a writer also needs to have thought about how important it is to him or her to insist on his or her vision vs. how important it is to get something of that vision out into the world in published form. I mean, if getting the vision out in an unedited form is important, it might not be possible to get published in a mainstream sort of way (then again, it might). I've always thought that if I wrote something that I thought was important enough but that no one would publish it, I would have to be willing to print up copies and, if necessary post them as handbills. An extreme action, not to be used lightly, but there to be used as a final resort.

Obvioulsy, not that much would fall into that extreme a category. Mostly, the dilemma would be how much to be willing to change the work in order or it to be "commercially viable." Each writer has to decide that on his or her own. But I think that most fiction, as much as some writers (me included) tend to treat each work as their baby, isn't so earthshakingly important that no compromise at all is possible.

Just my opinion.