Creativity and failure

Once! · Nov 14, 2015

Spotted an interesting article on the BBC News website. I thought fellow AWers would be interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34775411

It argues that quantity of work can generate quality and creativity.

shizu · Nov 15, 2015

I've heard that story about the ceramics class a few times, and it's always made sense if only from a probability standpoint.

If you're producing a ton of work (and learning from it, which admittedly may not always be the case) then you're more likely to have a few hits among all the misses just due to sheer numbers. If you're laboring over one thing for a long period of time, or theorizing, or anything else that doesn't involve gaining knowledge and experience in your craft, then the odds of that one project being amazing seems much less.

I think this is why the advice to finish first drafts even if you think they're awful is so important; you can't learn from a blank page, and you definitely can't fix it and make it better.

I know I always feel more productive and creative when I've already built up some momentum with my writing. It can be a little frustrating when I've already got a lot on my plate writing-wise, but it's a nice problem to have when it happens!

kennyc · Nov 15, 2015

Once! said:
Spotted an interesting article on the BBC News website. I thought fellow AWers would be interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34775411

It argues that quantity of work can generate quality and creativity.

Great article. Thanks!

Ken · Nov 15, 2015

Interesting stuff. One thing, though. Art is different than writing. It's similar to writing, but only so much so. Apply this to writing and you may not get the same results. Unfinished art may still rate, but unfinished writing may just be rubbish. Etc, etc. Ultimately, of course, for either do whatever helps you to improve and to sell your stuff if that is what you are into. Thnx for zee link.

Manuel Royal · Nov 15, 2015

shizu said:
I think this is why the advice to finish first drafts even if you think they're awful is so important; you can't learn from a blank page, and you definitely can't fix it and make it better.

Good point, and I think it's also important to finish them just to learn to effin' finish things.

jjdebenedictis · Nov 15, 2015

Yeah, I've been playing Sudoku on "evil" level online for a few years. Originally, if I used a grid and made notes, I could occasionally win a game. Very rarely. Then I got to the point where I was playing at the same level (barely ever able to win a game) except without the grid. Now I can win any of those games provided I just don't give up on them (which happens; it can take me 20 minutes to grind through a bad one).

I got better by nothing more glamourous than failing again and again and again and again without giving up. And everything is like that; if you keep trying, you learn. Someone here on AW has a sig line that reads "Everything yields to treatment. :Headbang:

" I love that, because it's true--being bloody-minded stubborn is perhaps more important than being talented (not that talent isn't required too, but you literally build more talent from nothing by continuing to struggle.)

Laer Carroll · Nov 15, 2015

jjdebenedictis said:
I got better by nothing more glamourous than failing again and again and again and again without giving up. And everything is like that; if you keep trying, you learn.

Quite right. The more we write (or paint, sculpt, cook, play basketball, do stand-up comedy, etc.) the more practice we get at our craft. As long as we try to get better at that craft the more we will get better.

Thus even unfinished manuscripts can be a learning experience. Certainly I've been halfway through a work and realized I was doing something wrong and trunked it, at least for a time. Then, when I got better, or inspired by a new approach to the work, I could resurrect it and finish it.

So, rather than being so depressed you could not finish a work that you quit writing altogether, start a new book. Even if you don't finish THAT one. Not writing AT ALL is a sure way not to get better.

Jamesaritchie · Nov 16, 2015

Once! said:
Spotted an interesting article on the BBC News website. I thought fellow AWers would be interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34775411

It argues that quantity of work can generate quality and creativity.

The BBC is only about seven hundred years late is saying this about all forms of art, including writing. There has never been any doubt at all about quantity and creativity, or straight to the point, that quantity produces quality. Whether it's da Vinci, or Shakespeare, or Ray Bradbury, or hundreds of others, all have made this statement, and proven it true.

Helix · Nov 16, 2015

Jamesaritchie said:
The BBC is only about seven hundred years late is saying this about all forms of art, including writing. There has never been any doubt at all about quantity and creativity, or straight to the point, that quantity produces quality. Whether it's da Vinci, or Shakespeare, or Ray Bradbury, or hundreds of others, all have made this statement, and proven it true.

We're not all old enough to have heard it the first time around.

Roxxsmom · Nov 16, 2015

So is there any hope for us who are inspired (get ideas we love enough to pursue) rarely but invest a lot of time and effort in the things that grab our heartstrings when we do? Or should I give up?

Are there any examples (besides Harper Lee) of good writers or artists who weren't super prolific, or at least didn't churn out huge quantities of work but produced fewer things that were still really good?

kennyc · Nov 16, 2015

Helix said:
We're not all old enough to have heard it the first time around.

This!

kennyc · Nov 16, 2015

Roxxsmom said:
So is there any hope for us who are inspired (get ideas we love enough to pursue) rarely but invest a lot of time and effort in the things that grab our heartstrings when we do? Or should I give up?

Are there any examples (besides Harper Lee) of good writers or artists who weren't super prolific, or at least didn't churn out huge quantities of work but produced fewer things that were still really good?

Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell.

Once! · Nov 16, 2015

Roxxsmom said:
So is there any hope for us who are inspired (get ideas we love enough to pursue) rarely but invest a lot of time and effort in the things that grab our heartstrings when we do? Or should I give up?

Are there any examples (besides Harper Lee) of good writers or artists who weren't super prolific, or at least didn't churn out huge quantities of work but produced fewer things that were still really good?

I'm not so sure that Harper Lee qualifies. She wrote for quite a long period between 1950 and 1959, including the famous one year working solidly on TKAM.

And Margaret Mitchell wrote for about ten years before Gone with the Wind.

That's the problem with many "overnight successes". Their success wasn't as overnight as we might think.

ap123 · Nov 16, 2015

Roxxsmom said:
So is there any hope for us who are inspired (get ideas we love enough to pursue) rarely but invest a lot of time and effort in the things that grab our heartstrings when we do? Or should I give up?

Are there any examples (besides Harper Lee) of good writers or artists who weren't super prolific, or at least didn't churn out huge quantities of work but produced fewer things that were still really good?

Donna Tartt, Jeffrey Eugenides, Michael Chabon, Janet Fitch. These are modern examples that jump to my mind.

Once! said:
I'm not so sure that Harper Lee qualifies. She wrote for quite a long period between 1950 and 1959, including the famous one year working solidly on TKAM.

And Margaret Mitchell wrote for about ten years before Gone with the Wind.

That's the problem with many "overnight successes". Their success wasn't as overnight as we might think.

To me, that's the answer to a different question. A long time between works, or few works, doesn't make me think the writer wasn't writing or that they were an overnight success, but rather that specific writer's process is different from those that are more prolific.

Roxxsmom · Nov 16, 2015

Once! said:
I'm not so sure that Harper Lee qualifies. She wrote for quite a long period between 1950 and 1959, including the famous one year working solidly on TKAM.

And Margaret Mitchell wrote for about ten years before Gone with the Wind.

That's the problem with many "overnight successes". Their success wasn't as overnight as we might think.

Well, I've been writing for years too, so if my "first" novel gets published, it wouldn't be the first thing I ever wrote either.

The difference is, I am the kind of person at the polar opposite of the Heinlein spectrum (churn a novel out in 17 days and sub it with no rewriting or editing at all). I want to make sure everything I write is right. I get very attached to a project and want to make it the best it can be before I send it. If I rack up rejections, it means I screwed it up and need to figure out why it's not good enough and spend more time rewriting and polishing that project before the next round of rejections.

And I've fallen in love with these characters and their world in a way that has made it impossible for me to get caught up in a new project. Writing this was fun and exciting. It's the first time the words flew from my fingers when I wrote. I've felt this way about a handful of projects in my long life (this is the first novel that felt this way).

So how can I change my nature and emotional profile to become the kind of prolific writer who can churn out dozens of things a year? How can I not fall into a deeper miasma of depression and self doubt every time I get a form rejection? How can I stick with a new project that feels flat, stupid, insipid, and uninspired before I get even three chapters in? When I get stuck and have no idea what these people are going to do next, and why should I care anyway? How can I write a good story about a character I don't love the way I love the characters from this book that keeps getting rejected?

Roxxsmom · Nov 17, 2015

Well, I killed this thread dead, it seems.

The question I have, I guess, is whether it's pretty much impossible to succeed as a writer if one's process seems to be about investing more emotionally in a smaller number of projects? I don't live under a rock, so I know the market conditions (and statistics) favor the shotgun" approach: those who can churn things out quickly and have lots of irons in the fire at once. People obviously would have an advantage if they're the sort who don't get too "attached" to any one project and who don't fall into despair and get frustrated and discouraged that their ideas and enthusiasm wither on the vine if something they love doesn't get any love from industry pros.

But if you're not that kind of person, is there any way to become that kind of person? Because articles that scold me and tell me I'm doing it wrong don't really help, since they don't tell me how to get more ideas and how to fall in love with those ideas and believe in them, even if they don't feel as good or as cool as the one that got my hopes up early on but has had nada since (and I'm still not sure why and still trying to "fix" it so I can query the rest of my list).

In fact, the scolding articles makes me feel even more discouraged about myself and my process, which makes it even harder to climb out of the pit.

If there isn't a way to be the kind of person most people think I should be, there seem to be three options:

1. Hope that it's at least possible to sell work as a "more eggs in one basket" kind of writer, even if it's less probable.

2. Resign myself to writing only for me and my loyal critting partners.

3. Give up on writing.

Once! · Nov 17, 2015

Hmm. Some deep questions there! I'll splatter out some random ideas and see if any of them stick. They might, they might not. That's what you get when you splatter.

It is dangerous to compare ourselves to other people - this writer is more prolific than me, this one had overnight success, this one manages to sell books by the bucketload, this book was far better written than anything I could do. When we look at another author, we only see the final product. We never see other people in the same amount of detail that we see ourselves. We rarely see all the failed books before the breakthrough novel. We don't see all the crappy versions before the final edit. We don't see the pile of rejection slips. We don't see their doubts and despair.

We only see other authors in their best light, compared to the horrible forensic detail that we use for ourselves. So put all other authors to one side. There is only pain in that particular comparison.

While we are putting things to one side, I would also discard any nagging books. We want positive things that build us up, not negative things which do us down. Far too many successful authors confuse "this is how I did it" with "this is how everyone should do it." And that can lead to us feeling inadequate if one particular author's preferred way of doing things doesn't work for us. I suspect we both know who we mean here, don't we?

Next I think we need to be clear about what we mean by "prolific". Yes, at one end of the scale this means authors churning out many many books. At that extreme, it can feel like a conveyor belt, a mechanical process. I can't work like that. I don't think many people can. But that is the extreme end of the spectrum. It is scary because it can feel alien and impossible to emulate. We don't necessarily have to be at that end of the spectrum. We can get results simply by being more prolific that we are now, without needing to be Barbara Cartland prolific.

Why do we think that "prolific" is more likely to lead to success than "not prolific"? I think there are several reasons:

1. sheer probability. The more works we have out there, the more chance that readers and editors will find something they like.
2. practice and polish. The more we write, the better we get at writing.
3. lightness of touch. If we only focus on one book, that book could become too concentrated and overworked.
4. permission to fail. Prolific authors tend not to put all their eggs in one basket. This can mean that their writing feels more effortless and flows better.

So let's take all the negative stuff and filter out anything that isn't helpful or positive. Don't beat yourself up for not being ultra-prolific. All that will achieve is that you get beaten up. Instead, let's take baby steps. Try to be a little more prolific than you are now. Tip the balance a little in favour of writing more. You don't have to tip the balance all the way. Just a little. It's a start.

I have a theory that we tend to get what we focus on. If we focus on our failings and our fears, then we will indeed fail and we will be frightened. Instead we should focus on what we want to achieve. Just write a little bit more today than you did tomorrow. And then do it again. And again. Don't think that you have to become a different kind of person because very few of us have ever managed that trick.

One other thought and I have to say this very gently and delicately. You put a lot of time and effort into this forum. Your posts are invariably well thought out, incisive and all round wonderful. I've often joked that I want a keyboard shortcut that says "I agree with Roxxsmom". If your writing was a fraction of the quality of your posting I am sure you would be a runaway success.

But ... you know what I am going to say, don't you? ... you are putting a lot of your energy and time into those posts. I suspect you do it because you know you are good at it, and that you have a lot to give. If you could give that same amount of energy and time to your writing, who knows what you could achieve? The important thing is not to beat yourself up about it.

Little changes, building on existing strengths. Not big changes based on feelings of guilt and inadequacy.

Richard White · Nov 18, 2015

I can only echo what Once! said there.

Perhaps if you're feeling overwhelmed, take a short break away from what you're working on and try something different. If you mostly write X, then try to write Y. It doesn't have to be a full blown novel - maybe a piece of flash fiction, perhaps a short story. You may be so invested in your book, all you can see are the warts. If you try writing in a genre that you're not comfortable with, then you can concentrate on technique and you know what . . . if it doesn't work, it doesn't work. Then try something else, and something else.

Once you've experimented with some stuff, then go back and I suspect you won't find your original document quite so daunting. Maybe by experimenting with other stuff - stuff you really never meant to send anywhere - you'll spot what might have been the fatal flaw in your story. Fresh eyes and fresh techniques may help you whip it into shape so that agents and publishers are falling over themselves to get it (don't we all wish

).

OR, maybe you'll find you're not quite so emotionally attached to these characters any more and you want to try your hand at a new story with all new characters.

But, you'll never know if you don't take a chance.

kkbe · Nov 18, 2015

Roxxsmom said:
Well, I killed this thread dead, it seems.

No, you didn't. :Hug2:

The question I have, I guess, is whether it's pretty much impossible to succeed as a writer if one's process seems to be about investing more emotionally in a smaller number of projects? I don't live under a rock, so I know the market conditions (and statistics) favor the shotgun" approach: those who can churn things out quickly and have lots of irons in the fire at once. People obviously would have an advantage if they're the sort who don't get too "attached" to any one project and who don't fall into despair and get frustrated and discouraged that their ideas and enthusiasm wither on the vine if something they love doesn't get any love from industry pros.

I think the shotgun approach works for some. Not all. Not you, apparently. Not me, for sure. I love the novels I do write, and invest a lot in each one, emotionally, I mean. I love the characters. I am a perfectionist and labor to get stuff 'right'. Meaning, perfect. To me.

But if you're not that kind of person, is there any way to become that kind of person? Because articles that scold me and tell me I'm doing it wrong don't really help, since they don't tell me how to get more ideas and how to fall in love with those ideas and believe in them, even if they don't feel as good or as cool as the one that got my hopes up early on but has had nada since (and I'm still not sure why and still trying to "fix" it so I can query the rest of my list).

You are who you are. You write the way you write. Screw those scolding articles, everybody's process is different. Everybody's approach to writing is different. Whether you are emotionally invested in your writing or happy to kick out good stuff with zero emotional attachment to it is a really personal thing, I think.

I do believe that writers tend to question themselves and their abilities. I say 'tend to,' so that's certainly not a blanket statement. But I think doubt comes part and parcel with many writers. The reason, to me, is obvious: we create, and put that creation out there for public scrutiny. And some people may not respond favorably to our work. Any kind of art, put out there, is going to garner subjective responses, which are out of our control. It's tough to accept that sometimes, at least it is for me.

In fact, the scolding articles makes me feel even more discouraged about myself and my process, which makes it even harder to climb out of the pit.

Quit reading those articles, that would be my advice. And not offered flippantly. True story: I went to the dr. once, all upset because, I told him, when I tugged at my hair, some came out. His advice: Quit tugging your hair.

If there isn't a way to be the kind of person most people think I should be, there seem to be three options:

1. Hope that it's at least possible to sell work as a "more eggs in one basket" kind of writer, even if it's less probable.

2. Resign myself to writing only for me and my loyal critting partners.

3. Give up on writing.

Or 4. Keep writing and learning and getting better at the craft, and keep doing your best work, and stop comparing yourselves to others, and expect good things because sometimes, good things happen.

xoxo kk

kkbe · Nov 18, 2015

Once! said:
Spotted an interesting article on the BBC News website. I thought fellow AWers would be interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34775411

It argues that quantity of work can generate quality and creativity.

Climbing up on my soapbox again, just for a sec.

I read the article with interest, looking at it as a writer, artist, and former teacher of little kids. When I was teaching kindergarten and first grade, I told my little students early on that everybody makes mistakes, that mistakes are part of learning. That it was okay to make a mistake, okay to x out mistakes, erase, draw a smily face on mistakes. Those kids made a lot of mistakes and, as their teacher, so did I. We owned our mistakes, talked about them, drew support from each other, worked to learn from them, celebrated effort as well as final products. Learning was the main thing, and you learn by doing, I believe that.

As a college student in a well-known art college in Detroit, I had a different experience. Quality was key. Final product was everything. I had a professor once who told me, point blank, that it didn't matter how long a project took, didn't matter how hard I'd tried to do it right, all that mattered was the final project. That's what we were graded on. And sometimes, that grade was based on subjective responses from faculty and fellow students. Some people didn't like my work, some did. That's how it was. Teaching children required a big, big mindset change for me.

As a writer, I find myself in a different boat once again. I work on my own, creating something that I hope will be good, good enough to maybe sell one day. Lot of ifs there. At this point in my writing--I'm about five years into it now--I think I've accepted my own process. I've written more and gotten better at writing. I've grown a thicker skin, for sure. I make mistakes but I'm more aware of the traps I used to fall into, and have learned strategies for avoiding those traps. I am more inclined to fix what's wrong without too much heartache and heartbreak. More willing to do what it takes to get my stuff sold. I will never be a prolific writer, I've definitely slowed down my output since those first couple of fanatical years. . .

Bottom line for me is, I try--try--not to compare myself. And I try to be kind to myself. And while I still make mistakes, I pull myself up and get back to it more easily now. Because I want to get my work out there and sold, and that is the goal I am striving for. And as long as I still like writing, I'm going to keep writing, at my own pace, and on my own terms.

Okay, off the soap box.

kennyc · Nov 18, 2015

kkbe said:
Climbing up on my soapbox again, just for a sec.

I read the article with interest, looking at it as a writer, artist, and former teacher of little kids. When I was teaching kindergarten and first grade, I told my little students early on that everybody makes mistakes, that mistakes are part of learning. That it was okay to make a mistake, okay to x out mistakes, erase, draw a smily face on mistakes. Those kids made a lot of mistakes and, as their teacher, so did I. We owned our mistakes, talked about them, drew support from each other, worked to learn from them, celebrated effort as well as final products. Learning was the main thing, and you learn by doing, I believe that.

As a college student in a well-known art college in Detroit, I had a different experience. Quality was key. Final product was everything. I had a professor once who told me, point blank, that it didn't matter how long a project took, didn't matter how hard I'd tried to do it right, all that mattered was the final project. That's what we were graded on. And sometimes, that grade was based on subjective responses from faculty and fellow students. Some people didn't like my work, some did. That's how it was. Teaching children required a big, big mindset change for me.

As a writer, I find myself in a different boat once again. I work on my own, creating something that I hope will be good, good enough to maybe sell one day. Lot of ifs there. At this point in my writing--I'm about five years into it now--I think I've accepted my own process. I've written more and gotten better at writing. I've grown a thicker skin, for sure. I make mistakes but I'm more aware of the traps I used to fall into, and have learned strategies for avoiding those traps. I am more inclined to fix what's wrong without too much heartache and heartbreak. More willing to do what it takes to get my stuff sold. I will never be a prolific writer, I've definitely slowed down my output since those first couple of fanatical years. . .

Bottom line for me is, I try--try--not to compare myself. And I try to be kind to myself. And while I still make mistakes, I pull myself up and get back to it more easily now. Because I want to get my work out there and sold, and that is the goal I am striving for. And as long as I still like writing, I'm going to keep writing, at my own pace, and on my own terms.

Okay, off the soap box.

Excellent. Well said!

buz · Nov 18, 2015

Roxxsmom said:
The difference is, I am the kind of person at the polar opposite of the Heinlein spectrum (churn a novel out in 17 days and sub it with no rewriting or editing at all). I want to make sure everything I write is right. I get very attached to a project and want to make it the best it can be before I send it. If I rack up rejections, it means I screwed it up and need to figure out why it's not good enough and spend more time rewriting and polishing that project before the next round of rejections. ...

But that's exactly what the article says generates a good creative product. Making mistakes and learning from them, over and over again. The article does not say that quantity of pieces creates quality; it says that failure and learning from it is an essential part of the creative process.

It cites Pixar movies as an example--movies that are, like a novel, one product only, but go through thousands of revisions and tear-downs in order to create the final piece.

"Early on, all of our movies suck. That's a blunt assessment, I know, but I… choose that phrasing because saying it in a softer way fails to convey how bad the first versions of our films really are. I'm not trying to be modest or self-effacing by saying this. Pixar films are not good at first, and our job is to make them go… from suck to non-suck. We are true believers in the iterative process - reworking, reworking and reworking again, until a flawed story finds its throughline or a hollow character finds its soul."

Roxxsmom said:
So is there any hope for us who are inspired (get ideas we love enough to pursue) rarely but invest a lot of time and effort in the things that grab our heartstrings when we do? Or should I give up?

This article shouldn't make you despair. If you've made mistakes and learned from them, "dared to fail" so to speak, then you've done exactly what the article says leads to creative success. This is not a "scolding article" for you, at all.

Read the article again, without the despair priming

Roxxsmom · Nov 18, 2015

kkbe said:
Climbing up on my soapbox again, just for a sec.

I read the article with interest, looking at it as a writer, artist, and former teacher of little kids. When I was teaching kindergarten and first grade, I told my little students early on that everybody makes mistakes, that mistakes are part of learning. That it was okay to make a mistake, okay to x out mistakes, erase, draw a smily face on mistakes. Those kids made a lot of mistakes and, as their teacher, so did I. We owned our mistakes, talked about them, drew support from each other, worked to learn from them, celebrated effort as well as final products. Learning was the main thing, and you learn by doing, I believe that.

The thing is, I completely agree with what you've said here on an intellectual level. Even so, I've always been (since I was a kid) someone who has a lot of trouble making mistakes. I'm terrified of failure. Maybe it's because the norm when I was growing up was to provide meticulous instructions on how to do something the *right* way and to punish mistakes, not to smile and tell the kid to find their own process, and if it doesn't work to try it a different way, rinse repeat.

Maybe it's because everyone told me I was super smart (worse thing anyone can do to a kid, imo), so if I failed at something it meant I wasn't trying hard enough, so I was actually scared to try my hardest (because if I did and still failed, it meant I wasn't smart after all).

Maybe it's just my internal wiring.

The articles (like the one linked in this thread) that say the shotgun approach works best are right. I agree intellectually with this advice for all the reasons given in "Once's" post. I have critting partners who don't, I think, have a better nuts and bolts grasp of craft than I do, but they get short stories published--mostly in semi pro markets, but now and again in pro ones. I don't. I know it's because they write a new short story each week and shoot them out to every market they can, while I write maybe a couple a year, research markets carefully, and after much hemming and hawing, send it out to a few. When it gets the inevitable form rejections from the ones I thought would be the best fit, I stop, wondering if I should rewrite it, and end up sitting on the thing forever. Because I hate to "waste" this idea if it turns out it wasn't ready to sub or that it could have been tweaked into something better.

As for novels. Oh god, I feel so overwhelmed at the idea of spending the next three years on another one. Even if I do fall in love with it, what if it's also a day late and a dollar short in terms of where ever the market will be when it's finished.

buz · Nov 18, 2015

Roxxsmom said:
The articles (like the one linked in this thread) that say the shotgun approach works best are right.

That is not what the article says, as far as I can tell. The article says that failure is a necessary and important part of the creative process; I don't see anything about quantity of pieces of work, but the benefits of allowing oneself to produce shit in order to get better. But, as you say, you have trouble with accepting failure and rejection as well, so moving on to that...

Failure is necessary and inevitable, if you try at anything, and is part of the path, and does not make you a lesser person. You know this, I'm sure. You also know that authors can produce works more slowly just fine, even if the mathematical probability works better with more products out there. I hope you know that not every rejection means there is something wrong with the book, and I hope you know there are quite a lot of things in this process you cannot predict or control, and I hope that the idea of accepting some of this chaos into your life is palatable, but--in any case--

It sounds, from your posts here, that you know better, but you are letting your emotional state take you by the soul-beard and yank you down. The first thing to do is acknowledge that this is happening, to separate yourself from that little emotional beard-yanking goblin that hates you and kicks you in the back of the knees when you try to walk, and recognize that the goblin's goal is to drag you into the mud. It does you no good to let the goblin win, no matter how convincing it is.

That said, I haven't gotten very far beyond this first step, myself, and I often find myself in the mud anyway. But realize that it's not reality doing this to you; it's a goblin. <3

kennyc · Nov 18, 2015

buzhidao said:
That is not what the article says, as far as I can tell. The article says that failure is a necessary and important part of the creative process; .... <3

Right and the more times you got through the process from start to finish the faster you will learn/improve. The willingness to fail.....learn from it....and try again.

and yes too, rejection by a publisher is not necessarily failure, it may not fit, they may have too many things to publish....or an infinite number of other reasons...

Creativity and failure

Still confused by shoelaces

is watching you via her avatar

Aerospace engineer turned writer

socially distancing

Beastly Fido

Still confused by shoelaces

Twitching

Beastly Fido

Beastly Fido

Still confused by shoelaces

Stealthy Plot Bunny Peddler

Huh.

Huh.

edits all posts at least four times

Beastly Fido

edits all posts at least four times