Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 4376239" data-attributes="member: 59082">Again, you are looking at this as an either/or when it is a matter of degree (which is why I used the word &quot;spectrum&quot;). I would say the evocative power and &quot;archetypal resonance&quot; of Howard and Tolkien is indicative of a powerful use of imagination.And again, I didn't say that &quot;Y is uncreative&quot; (if Y = fanfic), I said--as you rightly note--that it is less creative than X (X = original work). Further, &quot;creativity&quot; and &quot;imagination&quot; are over-lapping, but different, words. I don't use them synonymously.What sort of causal linkage should I be making? I'm not trying to prove anything or present a theory for peer review, which is funny that some took it that way. I was asserting an opinion, a hypothesis if you must, and throwing it out there for discussion (actually, the first post was a way of further explaining my view to Fifth Element, who took issue with my comment on the &quot;death of imagination&quot; via WoW). And it was backed up by several anecdotes, which were disregarded or explained away by the most vociferously against my view. This is not to say that three anecdotes are rock-solid proof, but that they mean something, that they were all expressed eloquently and an obviously strong degree of thought and care in their expression.And to be clear once more, I am talking about imagination, not creativity. As I said, the two overlap but are distinct. And specifically the ability to self-generate images, to use the &quot;imaginative muscle,&quot; which could be called &quot;creative imagination&quot; as opposed to &quot;creative problem-solving,&quot; which is more analytic and probably not as effected by video games.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 4376239, member: 59082"] Again, you are looking at this as an either/or when it is a matter of degree (which is why I used the word "spectrum"). I would say the evocative power and "archetypal resonance" of Howard and Tolkien is indicative of a powerful use of imagination. And again, I didn't say that "Y is uncreative" (if Y = fanfic), I said--as you rightly note--that it is less creative than X (X = original work). Further, "creativity" and "imagination" are over-lapping, but different, words. I don't use them synonymously. What sort of causal linkage should I be making? I'm not trying to prove anything or present a theory for peer review, which is funny that some took it that way. I was asserting an opinion, a hypothesis if you must, and throwing it out there for discussion (actually, the first post was a way of further explaining my view to Fifth Element, who took issue with my comment on the "death of imagination" via WoW). And it was backed up by several anecdotes, which were disregarded or explained away by the most vociferously against my view. This is not to say that three anecdotes are rock-solid proof, but that they mean something, that they were all expressed eloquently and an obviously strong degree of thought and care in their expression. And to be clear once more, I am talking about imagination, not creativity. As I said, the two overlap but are distinct. And specifically the ability to self-generate images, to use the "imaginative muscle," which could be called "creative imagination" as opposed to "creative problem-solving," which is more analytic and probably not as effected by video games. [/QUOTE]

Verification