Useful Fictions

In #articles

On Genies and Muses

If you haven't seen Elizabeth Gilbert's TED talk on "Your Elusive Creative Genius", go right now and watch it! I haven't seen a talk lately which has transformed my thinking on a topic as much as this one. To summarize, Gilbert observes that even with noted creative "geniuses" the process of creation is uneven. The creative juices seem fickle even for the accomplished and the perception from others (and even themselves) is that these people have failed when they struggle to create again even after major successes.

Gilbert reminds us that this attitude toward creation is new to the enlightenment, and that prior to that the "genius" was an external being which visited a person and could leave or be uncooperative. That the word "genius" and the word "genie" have obvious linguistic parallels was something I never noticed until this observation. People who externalize the creative influence with a genie or muse easily explain why they can be amazingly creative at one moment and be stuck in the next — the muse simply is not there. In the Enlightenment, we rid ourselves of the superstition of these external agents and the "genius" was tied to the individual — and thus also the responsibility for being "stuck" was tied to the individual too. By eliminating the muse we place a burden on the individual which may be unjustified. Gilbert speaks about the value of conversing with this external agent, saying things like

"Listen you, thing, you and I both know that if this book isn't brilliant that is not entirely my fault, right? Because you can see that I am putting everything I have into this, I don't have any more than this. If you want it to be better, you've got to show up and do your part of the deal. But if you don't do that, you know what, the hell with it. I'm going to keep writing anyway because that's my job. And I would please like the record to reflect today that I showed up for my part of the job."

Superstition and Stories

So what is this "muse" or "genie" driving our creative energies? I am not a fan of superstitious thinking, but this presentation got me thinking about the value of the story itself. We are not in control of our creative output — it is the product of our genetic make-up and the entire history of our experiences. When we have one thought follow another, our brain is accessing memories and impressions that have been built up in a complex process over the years of our interactions with others and with the world. We can, as Gilbert says, control whether we show up for the work but we can't control what the next thought will be. Given that we lack control of the process where our best creative ideas come from it makes sense to not hold ourselves accountable for them. However, it is far too wordy to describe this situation to others (or even to ourselves) every time we experience a lack of creativity. Given that humans are inherently story-driven beings there is some value in the short-hand of describing this "other" as an external agent, an effect outside of our immediate control. One value of doing this is to refocus on the things for which we actually have control and to not burn needless psychological energy on the things we don't.

There is a danger of believing these agents actually exist as external beings, even if they "exist" as those factors of our mental processes which are outside of direct control. Thinking this way, it makes clearer some of Jordan Peterson's otherwise obtuse religious-speak. Peterson latches onto religious metaphor and states that anyone asking if it is "literally true" is missing the point. Perhaps Peterson's "God" is a name given to his moral "muse", and to admit it doesn't exist is the same to him as accepting responsibility for thoughts and actions beyond his control.

I still have to think through some of these issues but I do find it interesting how people lean on stories and short-cuts to help deal with life's challenges.