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.
To the Editor:
It is murder to take a stand on this at all. For whom am I speaking? Creative people? Arrogant and, of course dishonest! Myself? Fine, but who the hell is she? And there is the terrible urge here to be flip, because Dr. Storr and many others can't seem to figure out who's got the problem, we or they. I think my epigraph sets up another basic problem, really, and that is, who defines the creative person, and creativity? God knows, there is more bilge spoken on that subject than the mind can compass. Girls in Women's Lib. talk about how you have to get out of the house to be creative. (I think they confuse creativity with non-repetitiveness. What a piece of hot hot news I have for them!)
What bothers me is that writers and painters and musicians, some of whom have no understanding of the joys of a world of reality apart from the esthestic pleasure of producing poetry or music, have to get help from doctors who may doubt the "sanity" of this activity. It also saddens me that my words will be of no help in that case. J.G.
A writer whose work is not published is a bum.A writer whose work is published is creative.A writer who is dead is a master. If he dies before the age of thirty-five, heis a genius.
IT IS FUN to be able to read an article and just stand on the sidelines and throw rocks, or in my case, pebbles. It beats having to sit down and write the article one's self. It is an interesting article—"Problems of Creativity." Since I am published, I am creative, but Dr. Storr didn't hit any of my problems until later in piece—what he starts out talking about are his problems (his and Freud's and psychiatry's) with