In a study conducted by researchers in Toronto University, it was found that regular readers also appeared to be more creative thinkers and less prone to snap judgements. the study also said that the people who read fiction specially short stories are less rigid thinkers. these people have less need for 'cognitive closure' and are more comfortable with ambiguity, uncertainty and disorder.

reader may relate himself with the thinking of various characters of the story and hence with the course of reading he subconsciously develop a sub set of new thinking pattern within the set of his thinking preferences. in all people become more insightful during the process and it does facilitate creative thinking.

Dear Guy,

As I understand your question, do literary studies increase social contact and/or ease creative thinking? The stereotype of the reclusive bookworm would point to the encouragement of antisocial behavior by literary studies, but in fact if you want to make a serious pursuit of literary criticism, you need to take other readers' opinions into account. Availability of email or of social media like RG makes communication faster, easier, and more frequent. If you add such correspondence to professional meetings on literary themes, you definitely discover an increase of sociability through studies of letters.

To deal with your other question, concerning the development of creativity, the answer is affirmative if by reading you discover relationships in the world previously unknown. One discovery of this kind leads to another and so on in an endless progression under optimal circumstances.

My own research in literature led to research in philosophy, which in turn led to research in theology, then to research in medical anthropology, then to research in musicology. All of this was the published disclosure of previously unsuspected intellectual relationships.

Previous studies have shown that craving cognitive closure is linked to being less rational when decisions need to be made, using less information when making decisions, and using overly simple ideas and concepts to interpret the world. There is also a well catalogued effect on creativity – in one study, having a strong need for cognitive closure led to producing objects and figures that were less creative (when inspected by an impartial judge).

So, with this connection in place, the researchers are looking to manipulate the need for cognitive closure using literary fiction. The researchers argue that fiction can act like a simulation of real world events – instead of the simulation being run on a computer, it is run instead inside the mind of the reader, who can empathise with the characters, or even assume their identity. Also, fiction does not necessarily demand the reader make a decision–indeed, some fiction relies on the reader being unsure of what happened at the end! This can be true for non-fiction too–history books can be frustratingly incomplete, as can the fossil records of the Earth as they are described in a textbook.

The authors set out to determine whether fiction or non-fiction (or both) affects the need for cognitive closure. They gathered one hundred participants, who were given one of sixteen pieces to read. Eight were essays, and eight were short stories, with the content carefully matched for difficulty (e.g. word length, sentence length). The sixteen pieces are listed in the paper. They then asked the participants to fill out a Need For Closure Scale, which asks the participants to agree/disagree with statements such as “I don’t like situations that are uncertain” or “I dislike questions that can be answered in many ways”.

The authors found that reading short stories, compared to essays, reduced the participants’ need for cognitive closure. The effect seemed to be stronger if the participants described themselves as prolific readers of either fiction or non-fiction

Dear Guy

Einstein said that the best definition of insanity is doing the same things and expecting different results always. When we try something new, our brain needs to adapt to these changes, and this process makes our creativity to work

The literature presents two common words: art and aesthetic.

 Art is the "ability of humans to implement an idea, drawing on faculty to master the material."

Aesthetic is rational study of the beautiful, the possibility of its conceptualization, as the diversity of emotions and feelings he arouses in man. "

Without a doubt, the literature interferes positively with creativity

They do, absolutely! We should place the question in the framework of RG - hence, as a question posed to scientists. And yes, scientists who read - non fiction, poetry, art history, and the like, do enhance their creativity. After all, the most basic requirement for a researcher to be ingenious is that the entire world - in the largest and yet strongest sense of the world - must fit into his/her head.

Science alone is not sufficient, and an inner history of science clearly shows that most creative and innovative thinkers have stepped with one leg (so to speak) on humanities - and the other leg on science. As a matter of fact, the greatest writers in the history of mankind have had a solid education or information about science, as it happens.

The value of the question lies in that points out at bridging humanities and sciences.

I would say so.

According to some authors it does. For example, Vazquez (Vázquez, M. (2000). Apuntes sobre creatividad: origen del término y su pervivencia. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 25, 1-7.) asseverated that creativity may be expressed by literary, artistic or scientific way. I agree with him. Literary studies activate a serie of semantic and abstract reasoning I would consider very important to get a creative response, a new and valuable ones. For this literary creativity you also need fluency, flexibility, elaboraton and originality, all of them main criteria for this process.

Moreover, beyond technical skills, analytical tools, and the like - it' s imagination what truly brings together science and humanities, whence creativity.

Well, my personal opinion is that literature studies can certainly help you to find patterns in the literature that other people have not see so far, to find new methods for your questions etc, and I therefore think that it can dramatically increase the visible OUTPUT of your creativity, because it provides your brain with more material to play with. I doubt that creativity per se is increased, but its OUTPUT certainly can be stimulated

I do think so.

I believe that literature gives us the opportunity to live more than once. It is difficult then to say that an active reader of literature is the same as another one who does not read it. Literature is the art of life which contains uncountable experiences and stories that are lived and experienced during the act of reading. The question now is: how many people You are?! or how many book experiences you lived since you started reading literature? how did they help you in dealing with your reality ?

Dear Amneh,

Descartes used to say that books are dialogues with the dead. In other words, books give them life again.

Let us all remind the point which is perhaps the most salient one in science:

At the end of the day, scientist should be capable of telling good stories, for theses tories are the ones that will be embodied by culture, society and history. Not equations of formulae, not experiments or proofs - but stories is the ultimate challenge of a good and creative scientist.

In my opinion, literature, and other cultural elements help make distinct levels of creativity to each other. It is undoubtedly a factor.

Any study for that matter can make a person 'little creative' but experience added with an intuitive observant mind can make one to be 'really creative.' Yes 'expansion of subjectivity' helps one to be creative but it depends on striking the right chord of 'objectivity' too.

The original question of "Can literary studies increase creativity?" and I say no. Language and learning to read replaces major use of the imagination. Cezanne did not look at other artists work to be inspired to paint Mont Sainte-Victoire. Having an experience, and skills are some of the dynamics that help to express oneself creatively.

Dear Phyllis,

I respectfully disagree. Literary studies increase one´s own verbal powers and enable creative responses to literature through literary criticism, if not through artistic emulation. The ancient Romans, by imitating Greek literature, often came up with some very fine products of their own. The most striking example is Virgil´s AEneid, emulating Homer´s Iliad, yet a more learned piece of writing. A more modern example is James Joyce´s "Ulysses." Cervantes´ "Don Quixote," unquestionably creative, is a dialogue with chivalric novels; it is literature criticizing other literature.

Even Cézanne, as far as technique is concerned, could not have existed without his immediate pictorial predecessors. Painting is always a dialogue between the artist and other artists of his times (see J.Ortega y Gasset, "Papeles de Velázquez," 1951).

(Keep warm in freezing Boston!)

Dear Phyllis, Cézanne had been in the, how to say, state of creating and at that time he wanted nobody and nothing to disturb him, as far as I understand. Theretofore, surely, he had been analyzing much, would you agree?

To my mind people choose, whether to be creative or not, despite any life activity. Parents, teachers, surrounding people should stimulate (it is wisdom, science), perhaps, to fortify a child, a youngster - ANY PERSON, so that they choose life, perpetual renaissance.

Creativity encompasses every thing that humans can imagine and transform into form-- literary concepts to scientific theories.

Dear Nelson,

So you are saying that creativity can be taught! I agree that in learning to write there are many skills before you develop a personal signature. A knowledge of literary or art history can be inspiration as well as handing down techniques. But, ...look at young children and there pure ability to create with no prior knowledge other than understanding how the tools work. Creativity comes from observation, imagination with an ablity for critical thinking. Here is another quote I like "Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up" -Pablo Picasso

Dear Phyllis,

Not exactly: I think that a person comes into the world creative or not, and if so, needs to have that creativity harnessed (without quashing it, of course). The spectacle of a child creating with no prior training is refreshing. Yet Picasso himself was trained in art from birth. His father, Pablo Ruiz, was a painter and an art teacher. Knowing I was subconsciously instructing by example, I used to sit down with my kids and draw when they did.

Dear Nelson,

I agree and going back to the question of "Can literary studies increase creativity?" I stil don't think so. Maybe critical thinking! I do love that Picasso said something like that he had to "unlearn'' everything he was taught to be the most creative. Yes watching a child creating is refreshing. You also unknowing were were learning so much about your kids when sitting and drawing with them.

I am glad to have got Your opinions on that question, and, you know, i have come to the conclusion, that proclivity to Create doesn't depend on literacy.

Let us remember our ancestry, for example. I could tell more, but i think, you have understood, what i want to say.

If I may, I’d consider humanistic studies as ‘literary’ ones. On other occasions, I expressed my comments relevant to the questions asked on RG and on the contribution of the humanities to scientific research. I pointed out that they have led me to believe that the most recent advances in the relationship between facts, meanings and values, the connections between humanities and social sciences formed part of a broader vision of science. The latter being understood as the integration and strengthening of a socio-cultural, ethical and philosophical foundations concerning the purpose, meaning and human values.

In my opinion, in some cases, it has become counterproductive to present science as the main example of an ethics of knowledge capable of integrating the process of learning with the researches referred to humanities. Even the idealizations of science and the presence of the component of creativity in them has a base on which to compare and adapt the individual and collective behavior, in order to gain space for freedom and its applicability. Sometimes they have run the risk of being only the exercises of rhetoric without referring to the meanings of ethics, knowledge, credibility and conditions that make them possible. The ethics of knowledge and credibility remains a mere aspiration because of the vague and sometimes secondary contents.

In my view, it should be recognized that creativity is also based on culture, becoming an effective tool for the overthrow of the rules and conventions that allowed to bring out the complex relationships between intensive and productive discussion on the relationship between the humanities and creativity.

Creative people are essential to the development of ideas, metaphors and messages that help to guide the interactions and social experiences on the path of knowledge . In other words, I am convinced that we are going to be increasingly aware that the humanities are essential to the formation of citizens with critical thinking, tolerant and sensitive.

The early aspiration of Enlightenment projects, according to which only science is revealing the "absolute" truth, is often covered up under rationalistic and positivistic positions.

I would also like to add that on a previous occasion, collateral to the subject of this discussion, I took the opportunity to highlight that in some phases of the scientific process of analysis we may encounter the interesting phenomenon of 'serendipity', which as I mentioned in a previous comment, could represent one of the examples of the close relationship between creativity and a solid base of scientific knowledge combined with humanities.

I cite the case of the technological and organizational innovations that emerge by chance and occasionally and do not stem from an original research projects explicitly formalized and finalized.

In some circumstances, I realized that other paths of inquiry have opened up other than those that I had originally intended to analyze under my humanistic formation. Creativity has revealed that unexpected and hidden aspects of reality have opened my mind to consider relationships and analogies, never noticed before. In particular, 'serendipian creativity’ has enabled to reach solutions diverging from those that appeared in the literature I am familiar with.

Trabalho com criatividade como saúde inclusive na literatura. O que vem antes: Conhecimento ou criatividade? Mentes criativas são inquietas, curiosas,interessadas na aprendizagem continua. Um se alimenta do outro. Mas ser muito criativo é característica de cérebros carimbados na sua formação. Uma pessoa criativa, ao esgotar seus recursos , naturalmente irá buscar mais recursos no conhecimento que lhe poderão dar de várias formas e terá mais recursos para criar. Creio que a relação é biunívoca. Mas a criatividade com certeza também se amplia com estímulos à percepção. No entanto, isso não quer dizer que se tornem mentes criativas por excelência.

Trabalho com criatividade também como valor em nossa saúde mental. A literatura é parte importante nisso. O que vem antes: conhecimento ou criatividade? Mentes criativas são inquietas, curiosas, interessadas na aprendizagem continua. Mas ser "muito criativo" é característica de cérebros carimbados desde a sua formação. Uma pessoa criativa pode aproveitar melhor os recursos que adquire no decorrer da vida. Se esgotarem seus recursos, naturalmente irá buscar mais recursos que serão recebidos através do conhecimento/métodos, etc. Creio que a relação é biunívoca. A pessoa amplia a sua criatividade, com certeza, se receber estímulos à sua percepção. No entanto, isso não quer dizer que se tornem mentes criativas por excelência.

A questão inicial é se no ensino da Literatura devem ser incluídos processos criativos? Sim, sempre, pois um processo de literatura deve utilizar muitos recursos criativos para estimular seus alunos a descobrirem o valor da "arte literária" dentro si, a amar em si o que podem encontrar no outro, no seu texto e no texto do outro. E penso também, que críticos literários, sabendo da dificuldade e complexidade do processo criativo, teriam mais delicadeza e habilidade para compreender o outro e dizer com delicadeza o que aquele "escritor" tem de valor e o que poderia mudar/melhorar para se tornar literatura.

Solicito por favor, que deletem (desconsiderar) o texto anterior. Não está com a clareza que desejei publicar.

Sou escritora e edito uma revista há mais de cinco anos. Veja aqui. www.ocuidador.com.br

Yes, the literary study can increase the creativity of the individual, because it is the expansion of the perceptions of the individual and develop and the evolution of the process of creative thinking, Thinking creative needs to train the mind and the development of the style of thinking and this is by obtaining more knowledge that can be obtained through sources Studies.

Science i¡on its own is - as can be seen in history, quite dangerous. Science needs a reflective stance and that stance, I believe, is provided by humanist studies, f.i. literary studies. On the other hand, humanist studies on their own tend to be sort-of vacuum spirit. They need to be fulfilled. so to speak by science. Numerous examples can be provided for either case.

Lets say, the first inhabitants, I mean, the parents of all humanity, didn't have the knowledge of the world. They looked around and started creating and whatever we have today is the result of that. Everything is a creative work. So, I come to the conclusion that you can imagine that you are the first man and start unlearning seeing things as you do now and see in your own way. To do that you should know what was before you. Second way is to learn the already existing knowledge about the world(there are different worlds)and analyse and create yours. Here, in the world of literature, texts give critical knowledge so that to see the connection of things from different sides. Creativity can not be taught, it can only be learnt.

No. Or, at least, not necessarily. Perhaps, it's first important to distinguish between reading literature and literary studies. Reading literature happens all over the place; literary studies occurs in schools. Even "literature" changes its meanings depending on this distinction - - somebody might read Rod McKuen's poetry as very "literary" in one context and then never encounter Rod McKuen on a college or school literature syllabus. In any case, certainly the creativity-effects of any text also depend on the reader - - as the reading experience itself is intensely inter-subjective. As the great jazz philosopher, Jimmie Lunceford, summing up a whole tradition of Jamesian/Deweyian pragmatism, once crooned: "'T'aint what you do (It's the Way That You Do It)." In other words, there are plenty of "uncreative" readers of literature.

As for "literary studies," I would argue that reading literature in a classroom can often be very "uncreative." In 1837, Ralph Waldo Emerson opined: "instead of Man Thinking, we have the bookworm. Hence, the book-learned class, who value books, as such; not as related to nature and the human constitution, but as making a sort of Third Estate with the world and the soul. Hence, the restorers of readings, the emendators, the bibliomaniacs of all degrees." Institutions tend to evaluate the quality and value of readings in very anti-creative terms. Any quick perusal of academic journals will demonstrate pretty obviously how professors and scholars - - the custodians of literary studies - - discount, marginalize, or subordinate creativity or creative reading to other goals. (I say this as a professor of literature.)

In other words, it's not what a literary text does or doesn't do - - it's how institutions encourage or discourage "creative reading" (to quote Emerson again), e.g. ways in which the act of reading produces new contexts, disruptive experiences, transformative moments, etc.

Can literary studies increase creativity? The answer depends on what kind of "literary studies" we have in mind.

I agree with Lawrence and I'm surprised it took that long for the question to be raised: what does "literary studies" mean? Many of us seem to have tacit assumptions (e.g. Nelson's "reclusive bookworm"). But it's not what you study, but HOW, that determines the outcome. Educational research (particularly constructive alignment and learner-centered teaching) tell us that what we learn is determined primarily by what we do. So if "literary studies" means, "listening to lectures about books and then writing essays that attempt to recapitulate the key points of the lecture," then I would say no. But if "literary studies" means, "using literature to help students learn to recognize, abstract, and practice creative techniques," then I would say yes. I have experienced both extremes, and the latter is far more effective and enjoyable.

A tradução feira do meu texto está péssima. O Google leu em português e traduziu para Português. Horrível. Lastimável.

I had lofty ideas about the power of literature especially concerning its creative potential to transform the imagination until I read and old odd book by a former professor of literature. The book is called Why Literature is bad for you. From the disillusioned realism of the author, all our conventional idealizations of literature could be just bullshit, for literature, including the so called great books, are all about exalting most of the worst negativities of the human mind, namely revenge, bitterness, envy, pettiness, lust etc. Show me a great work that is not a mise en scene of all or most of these human weaknesses? So whatever creativity literature may encourage seems to belong to the negative type. The subliminal messages we get from the best works of art are usually of the type that stokes the animal in us

As it is true in any field of study, it depends on many factors such as the content of the study, the instructor and the reader. Supposedly, literary studies should end at creativity since, though familiarizing students with various perspectives undertaken by the critical thinkers and theoreticians, they primarily teach them "how" and "what" to think. For example, look at the history of discussions over "mimesis" from Plato to our day! Through reviewing different approaches to such concepts, the students, on the one hand, learn how to raise, devise, counteract or develop literary concepts and, on the other hand, when encountering a text, they learn how to evaluate it from the possible perspectives. Therefore, although seemingly literary studies can mainly influence the "how" aspect of the students thoughts and criticisms, however, they also can enlarge their thinking horizons (or what aspect) through broadening their experiential repertoires too. it means that, creativity does not mean doing something genuine or authentic apart from the already existing ones, but it is an intertextual activity that chains one's thoughts and method to the already existing ones. If literary studies focus on enlightening the students about "how" to connect to and at same time disconnect their thoughts, perceptions and methods from those existing, they can finally bring about creative students (individuals) or students with different (genuine) "whats".

Is it not the case that famous creative writers are more notable for not having been on creative studies courses, or for not even having been to university at all?

Is it not the case that famous creative writers are more notable for not having been on creative studies courses, or for not even having been to university at all?

Is it not the case that famous creative writers are more notable for not having been on creative studies courses, or for not even having been to university at all?

(Sorry for two previous erroneous posts. I can't work out how to erase them!)

My favourite author of all time, Sue Townsend, has just died, aged just 68y and far too few days. She was brilliant, original, very funny, and yet extremely readable and accessible. Along with Dickens, her razor-sharp social observation will still be read in 100 years time. She left school at age 15, 4 more years of education than Dickens managed. Thank heavens they were never exposed to creative studies courses. Creativity is endogenous, not exogenous.

In my opinion, creativity is needed to bring out the unexpected and the hidden aspects of reality, and pays off as it joins to a gift of initiative and imagination within the team of researchers. It may show if there is a refusal to intellectual practices of reassurance on exhaustiveness of thought already reached. Additionally, creativity produces its positive effects if it is assisted by the researcher's ability to open up to the thought of other scholars. Creativity also requires intellectual honesty, open-mindedness and an ability to link and join with the thoughts of others in order to settle the pieces of knowledge in the logical framework of an explicable mosaic.

Presently, I settle on what I am observing in the preceding comments and I intend to consider that part of the RG discussion that has connections with the subject on which our team is researching and that concerns the economic and social effects of malevolent envy. This debate reflects the fact that the emerging proposals become questions that invite to reflect. Generally, I think that we are turning our attention to a 'model' of the human being that is less superficial in its saying and doing, and that for this reason he should not be judged divorced from any interest in the exploration and reflection of crucial demands.

In this regard, I would note that 'inventiveness’ never had paths already traced and that any survey should be performed with an attitude of humility which also includes the case of having to start all over again if the path ended in a street with no exit. For this reason I am aware that the studies that we are doing not only aim to produce knowledge and to describe the human being reformulating appropriately his/her figure.

Having said that, it is in the responsibility of the scholar to have the sensibleness that ‘studying’ is mainly to react and take a specific position.

In the light of these considerations, carried out within our research team, it is recognized that it takes intelligence, knowledge, wisdom and reasonableness to deepen the cultural aspects of human activity, which takes place on a techno-scientific plane for the analysis of an existence that goes far beyond the borders of what is purely experiential, measurable, computable.

Within the team each member is aware of it because every philosophical and scientific knowledge must be assessed critically, to remove ideology that can lurk inside. In addition, because ideology operates at the deepest levels of the person and of knowledge, checks purely quantitative, instrumental, formally logic and mathematics can not easily identify it. All this because science can not verify their assumptions critically. In fact, it is up to history and epistemology to deepen the horizons of understanding of any scientific claim.

It is now clear the complexity of the issue. Scientific theories are not reducible to mere mental exercises or constructions without dealing with reality, as it is claimed by the 'conventionalist', nor they possess comprehensive and definitive ‘hooks’ with reality as claimed by the 'realists'.

Most definitely, literature can increase creativity. Literature is a fantasmagora for creativity.

My hundreds of publications all had their genesis in literature.

Most definitely. Literature is a fantasmagora for creativity. Almost all of my hundreds of publications have their genesis in literature.

I agree: literary studies give tools for creativity. Nobody can see what it´s unknown.

@Felipe and Jair: I totally agree as I have tried to comment in these pages. Gianrocco

I agreeл Literature develops the most precious thing in the human brain - imagination. Every reader in its own way builds an image of given character. Tolstoy says: As readers have, so much Annie Karenina has.

Creativity is an artistic intelligence that is not totally innate but it actually developed by sharing other people'experiences and drawing on them to create new forms patterns or ideas,

Since we admit that it is necessary to "sow reasonable, good, eternal" (A. S. Pushkin), we can believe to get the necessary feedback: creativity.

Thank you for your help.

Indeed Literary studies has the capacity to increase creativity, sharpen critical capacity and  analytic ability. We have to understand that literary studies takes one through a journey on the road of the history of ideas. It exposes one to works of fiction and non fiction of different epochs, increasing one's knowledge of how ideas shaped society at each given period, giving one the opportunity of comparative analysis and projection into the future. But not only that, it also sharpens critical acumen through exposure to critical theories. All this pieces of information become experience and knowledge eventually. And with such experience and knowledge, one is prepared to navigate through life!!!!

Here's something to think about.  If a person has been denied literature all their life, by the time they become adults, I say they are culturally dead.  Literature is necessary to keep people alive and creativity is a cultural expression.  I am writing a research paper right now that is showing this relationship as it relates to male adolescents and blind people.  I am showing this as a created disability.  Literature provides a multitude of meanings that are crucial to survival.  What happens when some of the people can access literature and other people cannot?  We create a different class of people.

Com certeza. A literatura abre horizontes, amplia a capacidade empática, desenvolve a capacidade de expressão também pelo aumento de vocabulário e possibilidades na sintaxe... Entre muitas outras coisas.

Literature is a part of a society's héritage and teaching it to our young generations would at least, keep them in touche with moral virtues and mainly, increase their output when it comes to produce a piece of writing. 

Hi, Guy. I am very interested in this question. Your question is a little bit unclear. If I could restate your question “does the expansion of subjectivity increase creativity and creative thinking?” Please correct me if I am wrong. I believe that reading literature and engaging in literary studies HAS the ability to increase inter-subjectivity because of the reader’s response which then facilitates creativity and creative thinking. The reader’s response is the key. It is much like a remarkable mushroom I just found the other day. It was a long and slender mushroom with a cap on it. It looked weird so I poked it with a little stick. When I did, a puff of powder shot out. I was surprised. How would I have known unless I nudged the mushroom? Literature is like this mushroom. If we don’t nudge ourselves, we don’t grow.

There is a serious problem with nudging. You can bring a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. There is a problem with the ability to remain open-minded to new ideas. A person cannot grow in any respect when they live in a restricted environment. Restricted environments come in a variety of shapes and sizes. They limit the ability of the human mind to remain open to new ideas due to prejudice or health or any number of reasons. Inter-subjectivity cannot increase without the ability to learn and without a willingness to learn. By decreasing inter-subjectivity, we increase ignorance and cause social class division between the have’s and the have-nots thereby creating second-class citizens. There is nothing worse than engineered ignorance.

I am working on this idea as it relates to male adolescent boys and blind people. I believe that failure to provide literature to these two groups of people causes them to be second-class citizens. To take it a step further, I believe that total failure to provide any literature at all is cultural death. Language is culture spoken and literature is culture written. Illiteracy is the signpost for cultural death. The creative impulses of the heart and soul are signs of life – “ah-ha!”

Dear Guy,

Dear All,

I am a naive reader, I read belles-lettres because I like them.

I have understood your first question whether continual reading of valuable literature can influence us and does it open our mind and help better understand our world and its phenomena? I think it does.

As to the second question on a possibility to increa our ability towards creativity, I must agree with Nelson.

Here you are a paraphrase of Nelson last sentences:

My own liaison with literature led to read philosophy, which in turn led to paint and sing and listen to classical music, then to wonder nature and to do efforts saving it. I have tried to convert a tiny bit of this immeasurable treasure into my scientific field but in vain because literature and art cannot penetrate into the new(?) barbarian race conquering and destroying Gea.

Dear Corinne,

There are too many moribundus (not illiterates but are indifferent to Belles-lettres) people around us, some of them willingly suicides without knowing what they do.

Hi, Guy and Andras.  Guy, your original question and Andras' post caused me to think. It is an article that was printed in a newspaper that I once tried to get off the ground but it bit the dust after the very first issue. It was very expensive and very time consuming and so much fun to put together.  Apparently, no one wanted to think.  Not one single person wanted to read this article.  Here is an example of creative thinking.

There is something I must warn you about. It is similar to having a drinking problem. I came from an area of non-thinkers. No one I knew was a thinker. Because of this, I should have had no tendencies or weaknesses in this area, but it happened to me, and it could happen to you or someone you love.

I all started when someone I had long suspected of being a “thinker” offered me a social “think.” I politely declined explaining that I was a non-thinker. However, he was insistent that I try just one think. I hesitated but thought: what could one little think hurt? That was my first think, but I really liked the feeling it gave me, and before long, I was having one think after another. As embarrassing as it is, I have to admit that by the time the night was over, I had become pretty well thunk.

The next moving thought struck me, “what would everyone say? Bob has become a thinker.” I tried to keep it hidden, but when you have a thinking problem, it is hard to hide. Word gets around a small town. Besides the social thinks, I found myself constantly sneaking off to have a think on my own.

At other times, I would seek out places where other thinkers would congregate, so I could hang out with them. When you surround yourself with thinkers, it all seems so normal, but sooner or later you have to return to the world of non-thinkers.

In that world, I was leading a double life, you do your best to talk and act like the non-thinkers, but it was useless, non-thinkers can spot a thinker a mile away. It wasn’t long before my thinking began to affect my job performance. I was getting caught thinking on the job. I even began to think in church. Thinking can interfere with just abut everything.

Finally, my closest friends and pastor surrounded me one night and told me, “Look Bob, we care about you and want to help you with your problem.” I asked, “What problem are you talking about?” I was in denial, but they had me out-numbered. They insisted that my thinking problem was out of control. “You think too much. You have to stop all this thinking,” they said. They were right. I thought I could control it; but, in no time at all I had become a heavy thinker.

Later I realized that it wasn’t me they were so concerned about. It was themselves. When non-thinkers are around even one single thinker, their lives can become a virtual nightmare of mental confusion. A non-thinker’s life is very simple and uncluttered. The non-thinker has the television to tell him what to like or dislike, what to wear, eat, drive, and the newsman to tell him the news and what to believe is going on in this world. At church, the preacher tells him what the Bible says and doesn’t say, what to believe and not to believe. The non-thinker likes to keep it this way. I know for I was a non-thinker for years until that first social think.

I realized as a thinker I would be mostly alone. Not wanting that, I tried all of the traditional cures. I watched television, and forced myself to laugh at all of the sitcoms and stupid jokes and the endless programs that non-thinkers enjoy to no end. However, all of this only drove me to temptations to think. I immersed myself in sports and meaningless chatter with non-thinkers about the latest fads, the weather, movie stars, cars, homes, etc. I pretended to be enriched by the drivel which filed the newspapers and magazines. I listened particularly to my preacher’s endless array of hodgepodges of half truths and lies. I tried hard but found myself wanting, needing, craving, a think – any kind of a think would do. I fell back to thinking. I would think for days even weeks at at time. Nobody could stand me except my thinking friends. They understood. They had been through it with their non-thinker friends and family.

I used to spend hours wondering why can’t the world be full of thinkers? We could all get along. Is there anything really wrong with thinking?

Literary theory can help undermine the illusion of subjectivity and deconstruct all clichees about the romantic concept of creativity  - literature is impersonal (Eliot) and a text is a collage of other texts hence a critique of originality

Literature is good for expanding the mind, no doubt about that. What we often forget though is that literature can also do a lot of bad things to the mind. The almost organic alliance between literature and evil predisposes it to pervert minds as well. Study the great books and you will discover that they are about one evil passion or other eg revenge, cruelty, greed etc. Constant exposure to these negative passions in the great works has a way of 

 Sorry for the break. I wanted to say that overexposure to the negative stuff of literature has a way of influencing some literary people negatively. Some of them could be sneaky, resentful and unstraight characters. Literary people are sometimes not the best people to deal with. Literature can expand creativity and thinking but it can also increase or aggravate negative tendencies in some people.

@ Guy Kirby Letts,

the reading of the classics, for example, is capable of causing profound metamorphosis: "The good books are those that change a bit their readers." But also the writer can benefit: "This book changed me, said once a writer. It has given me happiness. It has given me hope. "

Then, in a compendium, we should not be contaminated by intellectually naive who judge those who deal with technical things as the only ones to do 'something', while who is involved in philosophy or letters is only a kind of alien or, at best, one that wants to distract with vacuous occupations.