Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6357828" data-attributes="member: 59082">Yes, exactly. I would guess that almost every author lets the characters speak to some degree, although different authors are more or less able to "tap into the depths" and really connect to what we could call the "living essence" of a character or place or idea. I hear that. This is the sort of "intellection" I was referring to that makes writing more of a science then an art, and it then loses its juice. It does have its place, and certain works are clearly, intentionally allegorical to perhaps make a point. But I think the key is the degree to which there is a quality of the unkown, a tingling feeling of mystery which I think is the felt-sense of what Tolkien calls Faerie.I know that as a writer I tap into this to varying degrees at different times. When I'm dabbling with ideas and I get that "tingling feeling" I know I'm on the right track. This is different than the more intellectual "eureka" of connecting the dots, like finding a missing puzzle piece in the plot or backstory. It is more like getting a sense that there is a border to the puzzle, and an Other World beyond that border. It is certainly a feeling of otherness (to the conscious mind), yet it is also a quality of going deeply within.Yes! Nicely put. I haven't read a ton of Coleridge either, by the way, mainly his thoughts on imagination; the quote up thread gives the gist of it, but I think he expands upon it elsewhere.But what you say reminds me of the connection of modern physics and cosmology and Eastern philosophy. Sometimes we need to rediscover what we've previously known, yet in a more contemporary idiom. But I think the key here to this discussion is that creativity and imagination come from "deeper springs" than the conscious mind. Creativity is not simply figuring out how to put something together, just as imagination is not simply being able to create an image in one's mind. It is connecting to something deeper/other/within oneself, that has the feeling of, if not the actual ontological status of, being other to oneself. This is why many fantasy authors describe their sub-creations as being more like discovering another world than building something from scratch. I find that the worlds that are build from scratch tend to be less dynamic, vital and alive.  That said, the creative process isn't a completely passive matter of simply downloading information, like Tolkien would smoke opium and then start having visions of Middle-earth and then write them down (although, on a side note, I read somewhere that the fantasy world Talislanta was rather strongly influenced by the author's liberal use of psilocybin!). It is a co-creative process, certainly with a receptive quality of opening to Otherness, but also an active component of weaving it all together, bringing it into form. This may include intellection and, to quote Pemerton, "the deployment of cultural motifs." But those are surface waters.I will chek it out! As for Bujold, I read part of one of her books - Curse of Chalion, I believe - some years ago and remember enjoying it, but didn't finish it for some reason. I do remember that it was well written, with real characters.</blockquote>

Verification