There aren’t many books on creativity. Well, there are if you count all the touchy-feely ones punted from the ‘spiritual’ angle. I’m interested in the psychology and science behind creativity, and welp… oddly, there just hasn’t been much until I found a somewhat obscure textbook on the subject called the Handbook of Creativity. Within the first few pages there is an explanation WHY there aren’t many solid approaches to the study of creativity:

(a) the origins of the study of creativity in a tradition of mysticism and spirituality which seems indifferent or even possibly counter to the scientific spirit;

(b) the impression conveyed by pragmatic, commercial approaches to creativity that its study lacks a basis in psychological theory or verification through psychological research;

(c) early work on creativity that was theoretically and methodologically apart from the mainstream of theoretical and empirical psychology, resulting in creativity sometimes being seen as peripheral to the central concerns of the field of psychology as a whole;

(d) problems with the definition and criteria for creativity that seemed to render the phenomenon either elusive or trivial;

(e) approaches that have tended to view creativity as an extraordinary result of ordinary structures or processes, so that it has not always seemed necessary to have any separate study of creativity;

(f) unidisciplinary approaches to creativity that have tended to view a part of creativity as the whole phenomenon, often resulting in what we believe is a narrow vision of creativity and a perception that creativity is not as encompassing as it truly is.

In my experiences, all of these are true. Among writers and other creative types however, the lack of interest seems to be points A, D, and E. Most of the creative people I know gravitate towards a mystical view of creativity. This is evident by the popularity of The Muse, originating from the Greeks as an explanation for divine inspiration. If I was to wait for the muse, the divine inspiration to strike, I might be waiting six days or six years. I’m sorry, but I don’t feel the creative process is all that mystical or unknowable. Insisting it is unknowable is tantamount to plain old-fashioned ignorance. We’ll have none of that around ye Quantum Storytelling, thank you.

The other issue is those that who would normally take creativity seriously, such as scientists or psychologists, don’t. To them there is either an ordinary explanation (e) or because of the traditional ‘mystical’ viewpoints (a), science treats creativity with the same amount of circumspect as religion.

It’s high time we end this nonsense, and devote a little study to a facet of human nature which is responsible for most of modern civilization. Who’s with me?

You’d better believe there are more excerpts coming from this goldmine!