On Creativity

I recently read Matched, by Ally Condie. It's been popular since it was first published. It's a dystopian novel that takes place, interestingly, in the not too distant future. The government is called simply the Society, with "officials" in positions of rank.

What I found most interesting about this particular dystopian society (fiction has presented us with many possibilities as to how a dystopian society could take shape) is the notion of the 100 best. In the beginning, when the Society was being formed, it was decided that there was too much in the world. It was impossible to focus on or appreciate anything. The Society, being the fabulous problem solvers that they are, formed committees that were tasked with selecting the 100 best. Everything else was destroyed.

(I can't imagine how devastating being selected to work on that committee would be. To be selected for such a task would require that you have an intimate knowledge of the are and all its best works. To select some over others? My heart would break.)

The Society gave the people full access to  the 100 best songs, the 100 best poems, the 100 best paintings. But there was nothing more beyond that.


Creativity is not a part of the Society. They already have the 100 best. Nothing more that is going to be created could ever be better than what they have. Why create?

Nobody in the Society seems to mind. For most of them, the thought of creating something original has never occurred to them. Perhaps it has something to do with the reasoning they have as the Society for why everything was destroyed but the 100 best. Perhaps it has something to do with the people that chose to be part of the Society (did they choose?). To me, it seems unrealistic.

People, all people, are constantly changing and growing. Nothing in the Society allows for this. It is completely stagnant. I don't believe it could really maintain itself at all. People may be easily led, but there are thousands upon thousands that would give everything, even their life, to maintain the right to create. How could such a Society even be established? After it's establishment, it could not maintain itself. Humanity is innovative. People are natural creators.


I was reading another book recently: The Alchemyst (The Secrets of the Immortal Nicolas Flamel), by Michael Scott. This book has been very popular and I enjoyed reading it. Except that I found it mildly disturbing. It took me a few days of ponderous thought after to discover the source of my disturbance.

In writing his book, Mr. Scott pulled on mythology and legends from all over the world. In doing so, he debased humanity and it's ability to create, imagine, and grow.

The two protagonists, twins Sophie and Josh, begin the novel as two normal teenagers but quickly become immersed in the the world of the mythical and legendary. As part of this immersion they learn that various traditions, pieces of knowledge, or even ways of life were not discovered or created by humans but are humanities imperfect attempts at recreating what they saw a higher being do. Creation and innovation is not a trait of humanity but is attributed to the higher beings that once occupied and ruled the earth, similar to how humans do now.

There is one innovation that Mr. Scott attributes solely to the ingenuity of humanity. That is the creation of iron. Iron, as it turns out, is deadly and destructive to the higher beings. Humanity apparently has some ability to create, but that creative ability leads to destruction so poignant even the nearly indestructible greater beings can't stand against it.

The debasing of humanity was neither the overall theme of the book nor, I believe, Mr. Scott's intention. I admire Mr. Scott for pulling the ideas together and making connections where before they weren't any. However, I do not like that Mr. Scott makes humans the pretenders and the destroyers.

I read another book with interesting ideas about creativity. I did not read this book recently, nor am I entirely sure I finished the entire book. I believe I did because I recall being unsatisfied with the story as a whole and the ending specifically.

The book is called Magician: Apprentice and was written by Raymond E. Feist. This book was first published in 1982 and is considered a classic in fantasy. During the course of the novel, the protagonist, Pug, finds himself in a society in which creativity has completely ceased. There are still masters of the arts, but they become masters because they are able to perfectly replicate what has already been done. This society has peaked.

Through means not quite natural, the well-being of this society becomes an inescapable part of Pug's efforts. Because Pug was raised in another society, he is able to see the lack of creativity somewhat objectively. There comes a point in the novel when Pug participates in a gathering of some sort, a meeting of people important to the governing of this society (I don't quite remember; it's been quite some time since I read it).  Pug points to the death of the society. They have ceased to progress. Without progress there is only digression and destruction. The society, in not too much time, will fall apart.

Creativity, according to Mr. Feist, is the essence of humanity, the source of progress, the viability of a society.

This is a take on creativity I appreciate. Miss Condie's dealings with creativity and humanity seem artificial. Mr. Scott's seems unthought (I hope) and debasing. Mr. Feist's seems far more true to the relationship between humanity and creativity.

I feel like now I should present you with some great moral on creativity. I don't have one. What I do have is months of thought on creativity and my own relationship to it. Most of the thoughts are too unformed to share but there is one that stands out.

I am creative.

And guess what? You are, too.