Commentary on "Creation and Interpretation"

Abstract

W HEN, as a young college student, I first considered pursuing the study of the psychology of literary creativity, I consulted with I. A. Richards. I shall not forget In his darkened study, seated behind an oversize desk, he gazed out of the single large window in the room and flatly said, Don't try it. Flabbergasted and dismayed, I managed to ask, Why? Because, he said, speaking slowly, is impossible to do. In order to understand either one of those areas, psychology or literature, one must have a philosophy. In order to study psychology, one must have a philosophy, and in order to study literature one must have a philosophy. I don't mean the kind of philosophy that's spoken of out there, he added, pointing toward the Harvard buildings outside his window, a philosophy of what literature is, and of what psychology is. It's difficult enough to develop such a philosophy for understanding each one of those, but it is impossible to develop a philosophy relating them to each other. Although I clearly didn't listen to his literal injunction (I'm convinced he never meant me to-he mainly wanted to warn me), and over these many years have engaged in research projects involving intensive interviews with highly creative people, documented reconstructions of creative processes, and numerous controlled psychological and psychiatric experimentsl-not merely on literary creativity but, in further defiance of Richards's caveat, on artistic and scientific creativity as well-I have always thought that the spirit of Richards's comment was very important: when relating two areas of complex human endeavor, one must try to have as broad and comprehensive a perspective on each area as possible. This type of perspective is my understanding of what Richards meant by his term philosophy as a concept distinct from academic philosophy. I cite Richards's comment here, not so much because I intend to demand two or more broad perspectives, or Richards's philosophies, from this issue of NLH on the interrelation between creation and