Wendy Bishop: All Writing is Creative...

...but is all writing creative writing? I thoroughly enjoyed this presentation. Dr. Bishop pursued writing in directions that I have become very, very interested in.

Accepting the traditional barrier for purposes of discussing it, I must then first propose a definition for "creative writing" as I understand it. When I think of creative writing, the kind of writing that gets its own course (or even section/emphasis of study), I think of poetry, short stories/novels, plays, and, after taking Juan's Creative Non-Fiction workshop a variety of personal essays, memoirs, and perhaps even autobiographies. I would have to contend that Emerson and Thoreau are eminent practitioners of creative writing. I think there are columnists who have gained the distinction as well.

That said, I'm on the fence. I would assert without fear that all writing is creative. We are at least synthesizing our ideas, experiences, influences etc. into something new on the paper or screen. Certainly this is creative in both the generative and aesthetic sense. However, there is, in the traditionally defined creative writing genres a difference of purpose that I believe is telling. Whatever lofty ideas presented/espoused by a given piece of literature, in order to be literature there has to be a primarily aesthetic goal. I think this is the distinguishing line between creative writing and writing geared toward other purposes.

Now, if one broadens the definition of creative writing all bets are off. One might easily argue that all writing is creative, therefore all writing is creative writing and at that point, I would accept the syllogism. I think even, that this would clarify the argument, which is really, what is the difference between writing with a primarily aesthetic goal, and writing for other purposes. (I am choosing aesthetic, bu it would be equally fair to say entertainment, and is probably best labeled as some combination of the two.) The question then is can all writing be aesthetic writing, that is writing that counts aesthetics as a (if not the) primary purpose. I would answer no. Academic writing, technical writing and many other types while requiring creativity (they are all creative, that is generative) are markedly different in tone and purpose from aesthetic writing.

Now surely someone will pull a piece (I have one in mind by Donal Murray myself) that surely blurs the boundaries if not outright defies them. This (okay, these) exception(s) are just that: exceptions. They prove the rule that there is a distinguishing line of style and tone between the types of writing that keeps many techniques of one from being affective in the other.

That said, I think that there is a ton the two can learn from each other, especially in terms of process and process difficulties - revision, editing, writer's block etc. I have been astounded by the correlations between the process theorists and the "theorists" on the creative side, as I detailed in much earlier post on Peter Elbow. I do think that a union of the two types of writing, recognizing that all writing is creative even if it isn't all aesthetic writing, would yield generative processes, and revision practices universally beneficial and applicable. I would welcome the opportunity to learn more of what Dr. Bishop did in this area, and to explore it further myself.