You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
“Writer's block,” a term coined and genetically explained (as far as I know) by myself in a dozen studies on writers conducted over a period of nearly twenty years, and expounded in my recent book, THE WRITER AND PSYCHOANALYSIS, (1) denotes neurotic inhibition of productivity in creative writers. The clinical term acknowledges a neurotic disease. Naive contemporaries, however, have been violently denying the very existence of “such a thing.”
There are, in general, ten fallacious arguments which are brought forward, either singly or in combination, by the negators of “writer's block.”
Fallacy No. I: The No-Talent Theory of Writer's Block.
The promoters of the thesis, “A writer who does not produce has no talent at all,” cannot explain what “talent” is in the first place, nor are they able to account for the hiatus of productivity in established writers, sometime stretching over many years and even decades. The adherents of this fallacy simply establish an artistocratic circle of “genius with talent,” and, without seeing the redundancy, stick to it with desperate determination.
Fallacy No. II: The “Publisher's Block” Theory of Writer's Block.
The reasoning underlying this laughable fallacy: “There exists no writer's block; if anything, one could speak of a ‘publisher's block,’” runs as follows: “A real writer has a whole trunk full of manuscripts; publishers are to blame when these masterpieces remain in the trunk - unused.” Asked how and where the inhibited writer fits into the pretty picture, the answer refers to Fallacy No. I.
Fallacy No. Ill: The “Drained-Dry” Theory of Writer's Block.