Below is an article on Writer's Block that I would like to share with all of you precisely because I am suffering from this malicious disease that befalls many writers, even the great Stephen King himself. By the way, the month of February has been kind to me so far. I've survived 7.5 kms of jungle trekking and water rafting adventure....ha ha ha....they can't get rid of me yet heh! It's Chinese New Year 2008 so here's wishing all a Happy Chinese New Year, have a prosperous one yourself....(you may be asking yourself why the heck is this guy babbling about jungle trekking and water rafting what not, actually I have just joined the KPLI programme to be trained as a teacher and part of the training had me jungle trekking and water rafting....duh). Anyway, try to enjoy the article below. Good night, sleep tight, don't let Writer's Block bite!
Writer's block can be closely related to depression and anxiety[1] two mood disorders that reflect environmentally caused or spontaneous changes in the brain's frontal lobe. This is in contrast to hypergraphia, more closely linked to mania, in which the changes occur primarily in the temporal lobe. These processes, and their implications for treatment, are described in neurologist Alice Flaherty's book The Midnight Disease.
However, another interpretation of writer's block, sometimes confused with scant output, is given in the book Silences, by Tillie Olsen, who argues that historically many women and working-class writers have been unable to devote themselves to, or concentrate on, their writing because their social and economic circumstances prevent them from doing so.
It is widely thought that writer's block is part of a natural ebb and flow in the creative process. Author Justina Headley explains in keynote speeches that for her it comes from losing touch with the characters about whom she is writing; and that by discovering who they are again, the block disintegrates.
Arthur Hermansen's view
Author Arthur Hermansen argues that writer's block is actually non-existent. He suggests that what occurs is the time lapse between "when a creative problem is posed or suggested to the subconscious parts of the creative process in human thinking, and when the problem is solved and the solution becomes appearant to conscious mental awareness". He goes on to describe the conditions contributing to this misunderstanding as social expectations and a person's own lack of trust in the subtle and hidden subconscious processes involved in creative thinking.
This can often be mistaken for writer's block, when in fact the problem is just not recognized consciously during the time the solution is worked on in the subconscious. This is because part of the creative process happens to reside in the subconscious mind, where conscious recognition is not present. No neural pathways for conscious monitoring of these parts of the subconscious creative process exist. Since such pathways are not necessary for successful creative cognitive process output it may never be developed in the evolutionary sense.
Some aspects of the creative process work subconsciously to their own timetable, and often take a great deal of time. There is the perception that if something is not working out right away, the creator is to blame, instead of the creator incorrectly diagnosing how creativity works as a cognitive process. Hermansen suggests that maintaining conscious recognition of every step in the creative process is not the way to understant the creative process.
Given that the subconscious mind rarely forgets anything, it continues to deal with the creative problem it has been working on the solution to all along. It is possible that while regarded as some sort of comprehensive creative dysfunction, subconscious creativity continues to function. However long the elapsed time may be, whether nanoseconds or years, the subconscious mind is involved in the creative challenge. Hermansen states this is due to a lack of practical awareness of, and trust in, the ability to utilize our genetically endowed creative capabilities and capacities without trying to control them by rigid conscious monitoring. He asserts this misinterpretation can work against specific creative solutions individually, and the creative process generally.
Hermansen states this idea is based on assertions that creativity itself is simply defined as problem solving, and the fact the subconscious mind is multiple times more intelligent than the waking, conscious self. Thus, it can administer its own processes without one having to be directly and consciously aware of, accountable to, or understanding how, these processes operate. This is similar to other instances of "knowing" without understanding the process such as falling in love.
He states these reactions and labels are due to a fundamental lack of trust in the creative process because at this state of awareness in our civilization with respect to creativity, it is not entirely understood in clear and simply described terms. This lack of trusting what cannot be explained, sabotaging the creative process through doubt or lack of understanding. For Hermansen, generally a convenience-oriented society has unfairly discredited time and resource-consuming mental processes one cannot prove with the senses. This way the creative process is not helped due to the individual's misunderstanding of creative cognition as well as from (Western) society's impatience with a often subtle, delicate and complex thinking process.
As a solution, the author offers a contiguous creative "flow" process. Hermansen suggests setting more achievable sub-goals applied to whatever medium the creative is working in and applies to symbolism, images or software code.
The time gap between these cycles is almost imperceptible in one part due to their short length in elapsed time for the majority of solution achieving functions. In the other part their purpose in the creative process to begin with - that being to solve problems - renders them low priority in this process's relative purpose and subsequently insignificant in importance to warrant conscious notice. He suggests similar to the the short breaths we take when exercising our body; so does the mind when exercising thought; it just so happens thought is faster so we hardly recognize it consciously. This approach builds from small increments towards a total outcome, rather than the person being overwhelmed by the overall aim.
At the other end of the scale he suggests that more sophisticated, original or difficult creative problems may bury themselves in the subconscious for solution processing for long periods of time, even years. When this elapsed time becomes quite long, the common misinterpretation of writer's block is asserted by the conscious self and society because of a lack of understanding of how time and the creative problem solving process are inextricably linked. This is more evident when the task is complex.
Results oriented thinking is in contrast to creativity as a cognitive process where instant outcomes are not a priority because the creative cognitive faculty is aware this is generally not the method to a completely satisfying solution. Of Mice And Men took ten years to write. Being a realist, it is likely he was more aware of the literary process than non-writers and gave it all the time it took to complete.
Likewise it is important that for every Eureka! moment there has been a long and hidden process of working consciously or subconsciously on a problem therefore realistically recognizing this can help to maintain mental discipline.
Apart from those aspects of writer's block there may be psychiatric or psychological cognitive challenges. What might be seen as a writing problem may be a psychological or mental health problem that responds to proper treatment. The exception to this is people who write when suffering mentally. Others channel the anxiety or depression into expression in their writing. Hermansen argues that writer's block can also be blamed for lack of work or ability ("undermanifestation"). He also relates it to a challenge for the creative to take their efforts to another level.
Writer's block as a chronic problem
There have been cases where writer's block has lasted for years or decades. The most notable example of this in modern literary history was Henry Roth's writer's block which persisted for sixty years and was caused by a combination of depression, political problems, and an unwillingness to confront past problems. This kind of writer's block seems to be quite rare, and most writer's block lasts for shorter periods or simply a particular sitting. Writer's block has caused problems for writers using the serial form, such as Stephen King's The Green Mile.
