Originality is subject to opinion, therefore, this forum is irrelevant!
But really, I don't think there is one thing about writing, even grammar, that isn't subject to a person's opinion. There are entirely too many "right ways" to do anything. It's actually rather annoying.
Its easy to see how people can get imagination and creativity mixed up. Sometimes the line between the two can be blurred, but the line is always there. You need both to write, but I unless you can use technical skills to make it seem real or legible your just going to end up complete and utter chaos.
Creativity (to me) is a form of problem solving. Its finding a way to take whats in your head and turn it into something tangible (not as easy as you'd think). Its looking at things in a different way, and approaching things from a different perspective. I've never read Twilight, but to me if you can't execute your idea, you're not all that creative. Like you said you may have an active imagination, but you couldn't MAKE it (CREATE) into something. So saying Twilight isn't well written but is creative, to me at least, is an oxymoron. I don't want to judge a book without reading it but the premise is clichee' to me. But hey I'm a book snob! Can't help it, just have been reading too much for too long lol. But here's the thing, what we're calling "creative" is really just surface level stuff. The vampires, werewolves, and what not are just a fresh coat of paint on old ideas like a Romeo and Juliet type romance, teen love drama (who will I CHOOSE!?) and etc. Plot and character development have to go deeper than surface level interest. I DO understand what you're saying though and agree that people call books "good" because they like the IDEA of it, not necesarily the actual execution of it. The writing, plot, and character development might be stale, but they like the idea of what the book is about. Sometimes I think they decide they like it before they ever read it lol. The other thing I've decided is that alot of popular books have come to serve the purpose, not of introducing you to interesting characters out of the authors head, but rather lettimg YOU insert yourself into the story and imagine "you are the lead character". That kind of escapism is fun, so I don't begrudge anyone who likes a book like Twight, or rant about it to everyone I see. I just don't think of it as something I ever want to read.
I think it plays a part in it. Most creative people have some degree of talent of some kind. I haven't known a whole lot of people who had big imaginations and DIDN'T also have some creative skills, or at least a "knack" for it. I just think "create" is in the word "creative", and to create means to make something right? There are some people though, say in business, who come up with solutions and new ideas. They make not be making a physical thing like a painting or a book, but theyre solving real problems and producing tangible results from their ideas. Thats creativity too. A great public speaker knows how to express their points and thoughts in a way that makes people listen, and thats a skill set as well even though its not really making something you can touch and see. So I guess Im saying yes, but there's different kinds of skills.
Well you aren't born with technical skill, but (I work with kids everyday) it seems like people who have that innate creative "thing" show an interest in artistic activities, so the skill develops naturally. Not that you have to be artistic to have a big imagination. I just think execution plays a part in creativity.
Come on, I left for an entire month and nobody's driven you out yet?
Creativity, like originality --which is something often discussed on these forums--, is subject to an individual's opinion. In MY opinion, Twilight is a poor excuse for a series, books and movies. But I'm sure there are some rabid fans that would beat me within an inch of my life because their opinion is different, right?
Creativity alone doesn't make a good writer. Something unique and original is nice but if you can't pull off your own concept, you might as well just write something familiar and well-worn but written well. Most of everything has been done with story-telling and despite what those reviews in and on the back of book might suggest of something being "original" and "fresh", there is hardly such a thing anymore.
Now for the Twilight rant. I mean Twilight was unique for having sparkly vampires, if that, but take the vampires away, you have a love story that has been repeated before. There nothing unique about it. It's was a cheap romance novel in the form of a young adult novel hence why it was a hit with the "Twilight Moms" and everyone who likes that sort thing. The idea of it had been used in media, books and TV shows that have done the, "I'm in love with something that can harm me," before. It may have opened doors for that sort of thing to become popular, but it was already there.
I think someone needs to invent a pesticide to wipe out all story ideas relating undead beings sentient or not. Though this include ghosts and liches, it's a little unfair to them. I think someone can make it so that it isn't broad-spectrum. Just enough to kill the over-use/misuse of vampires, and stop all the zombie apocalypses that everyone is stuck on.
well, being creative is definitely a component of being a good writer i would think. having good technical skills is also a component, however, more important than creativity? don't think so. good technical skills can be taught. being creative is almost an intangible. (i've been under the weather for this entire thanksgiving so i may be a bit 'off'. bare with me.) as for the twilight series,... when i start a book i give it the 50 page test. if absolutely nothing has happened within 50 pages then the 'life is too short' alarm goes off in my head. however, if ANYthing happens i'll give it another 50. but i must tell you after that it had better pick up the pace. the twilight series? the alarm went off. sorry to all the fans.
wanna a hook up to some very good AND CREATIVE vampire books? here ya go: christopher moore wrote three: bite me: a love story you suck bloodsucking fiends (actually i would recomment anything by moore. he might not have written the book on creativity, but he certainly contributed a couple of chapters.) also another excellent vampire book is: vamped by david sosnowski oh! and don't forget: let the right one in by john ajvide lindqvist of course there's: interview with a vampire by anne rice.
so anyway,...i've probably once again swerved way off topic. i did mention i've been under the weather right?
I'm not that creative myself, though. I think you're screwed without any creativity at all, but yeah, some needs to be there. Are you sure it can't be learned, though? (Okay so I kind of agree with you...but devils advocate. I have to.)
Haha, I had that problem with 'The Sound and the Fury'. Page 80, woops.
Thanks for the recs! Also I would recommend at least the first few Charlaine Harris 'True Blood' series. The voice is impressive as hell, but eventually I couldn't suspend my disbelief. Too many hot men fall for the lead girl. 'Interview' is probably in my top ten books.
I managed to get sick on Thanksgiving (something's going around), so I guess it's good I don't eat dead bird anyway. You?
hmmmm. first. you ARE creative. not even gonna debate that with you. i mean it. don't. DON'T.
as for learning or being taught creativity. maybe we're not thinking along the same lines. or maybe I'M not. i'm thinking of something that is basically innate. something you're born with. or maybe you're a product of your environment from.
hmmmm. well,...guess i may have just offered up the argument against my initial statement. because if one can acquire creativity by being in an environment that would cultivate it then,...it can be learned. hell, it's a grey area. anything's possible. i think i've probably absorbed alot of creativity that in turn found it's way into my art. as tennyson wrote: (don't hate me. i just love this poem) 'i am a part of all i have seen' -ulysses by tennyson.
man. i type too much, don't i? am i making sense? this time? maybe?
I don't understand why it should be one or the other. A lot of the best writers are incredibly creative, even while treading familiar ground. I'd say the ability to be highly imaginative or creative is part of the whole package. Much like talent, those things alone aren't going to produce quality work, but they sure do help.
Also, my dictionary and thesaurus are suggesting a lot of crossover between both creativity and imagination, even to the extent they're considered synonyms. But I would link creativity to its root "create," which is linked to the ability to produce or craft something new. Imagination I would regard more as the raw stuff of creativity, simply the ability to generate new ideas.
I tried reading Twilight... I think after the third chapter I put the book down. It just bored me to DEATH. I mean, even now, I don't even remember what the chapters were even about. I remember reading a lot about a truck or a car or something. but really.. Vampires don't sparkle. They just... don't.
However.. I will say this. The only reason I watch the movies are for the shapeshifters(AKA: werewolves). They're pretty cool.
All the vampires are a bunch of pussies. Especially Edward
Because your title tempts me: Twilight was a creative story. Creative in the sense that it was SMeyer's own unique twist on vampire/human romance, which in itself has been popular ever since ever right along with other human/non-human creatures. However, the true potential of Twilgiht's creativity was significantly hindered by its tedious and disgusting portrayal. In short, Twilight is suck. Yes. "Twilight is suck." That's all I have to say about that.
I won't argue that my ideas of what makes something "creative" or "imaginative" better, but rather different. To me, being "creative" simply means that you can take something that has already been used before (as everything has been used before) and turning it into something fresh and new. I have twenty-something books in my personal collection that are specifically teenaged romance where the plot is exactly the same in every book. But I can sit and reread every single one of theme because each story is essentially different and told differently, even if the same blonde head cheerleader is a stuck up bitch and the hot quarterback (which I still don't know what that is.../fails at football) is dumber than dumb and the awkward new girl is always a brunette and clumsy and comes from a broken family. ...I'm so glad I stopped reading teen fiction.
Bella's lack of emotion towards anything is a big turn off for me. And how the only time she does feel anything is when she's experiencing an unfamiliar feeling in her heart when Edward is around. D'awww. No. No. No. There, I said it three times. I couldn't relate to the book. It was boring for me. The romance wasn't real. :\
The last teen book I read was the House of Night series. I read to book five then stopped. Honestly, I don't know why I kept reading. The written quality is worse than Twilight, and instead of being devoid of all emotions like Bella, Zoey is chuck full of them! Mostly in her pants, though, since she just can't help but go around and screw every hot guy in the book (and all the hot guys are attracted to her because she's like the hottest girl, rivaled only by Aphrodite. Yeah. Aphrodite.). And she wonders why her teacher-boyfriend is using her for sex, her human boyfriend only wants her for sex, and her vampire boyfriend (who is seriously the only decent character in this series) breaks up with her after he finds our she cheated on him. Times 2. And dey nevah haz teh secks. D': I quit.