Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Illustrations
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Impetus, Contexts and Methods
- 2 Composition through the Lens of Creativity Theory
- 3 First Insight, or the Glimmer of Possibility
- 4 Preparation, or Research Broadly Conceived
- 5 Incubation, or Breaks from Conscious Attention
- 6 Insight, or the Eureka Experience
- 7 Verification, or Evaluation
- 8 Emergent Patterns
- 9 Implications for Writing Instruction
- Appendix A Coding Table
- Appendix B List of Cited Paris Review Interviewees
- Appendix C Diagram of Analytical Categories, Subcategories and Themes
- References
- Index
7 - Verification, or Evaluation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 April 2022
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Illustrations
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Impetus, Contexts and Methods
- 2 Composition through the Lens of Creativity Theory
- 3 First Insight, or the Glimmer of Possibility
- 4 Preparation, or Research Broadly Conceived
- 5 Incubation, or Breaks from Conscious Attention
- 6 Insight, or the Eureka Experience
- 7 Verification, or Evaluation
- 8 Emergent Patterns
- 9 Implications for Writing Instruction
- Appendix A Coding Table
- Appendix B List of Cited Paris Review Interviewees
- Appendix C Diagram of Analytical Categories, Subcategories and Themes
- References
- Index
Summary
For all the excitement and relief that accompany insights as depicted in Chapter 6, wizened artists and scientists live with the reality that the high of those Aha! moments may be short-lived, that ostensible solutions to creative problems they’ve posed may, in hindsight, be deemed inadequate or even false. Hindsight in this context equates with verification, the fifth element of the paradigmatic creative process model, which involves further reflection on proposed solutions in the interest of testing their viability. Tests for viability of insights in writing may occur relevant to various elements of the paradigmatic composing process model. At times, an insight's efficacy is borne out in the maintenance of flow during drafting; put another way, a break in flow could signal that the supposed insight is erroneous or inadequate. Most commonly, however, efficacy is determined in the analysis of all the inner workings of a text during revision and editing processes.
While certain measures of viability are performed by writers as they are engaged in their craft, verification eventually extends beyond authors’ assessments of their own works as they are subjected to the judgments of individual readers, target audiences, the publishing industry and professional critics. Along these lines, the 434 references to verification in the transcripts of The Paris Review (PR) interviews examined for this study break neatly into two subcategories: self-evaluation and evaluation by others. The first subcategory to be addressed explores authors’ reflections on their drafting and revision processes, but it also acknowledges the significance of individual artistic sensibility. The second subcategory focuses on the estimation of others, not only those whose opinions the authors especially value, including family members and close friends, but also members of the literary establishment.
Self-Evaluation
Three manifestations of self-evaluation as a mode of verification appear in the interview data, including the writer's identification as a professional, revision practices and the author's sense of “rightness” regarding a text under review. It seems appropriate to begin this section with the theme of professional identity since, separate from it, the other modes of self-evaluation would essentially become moot.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Creativity and 'the Paris Review' InterviewsA Discourse Analysis of Famous Writers' Composing Practices, pp. 103 - 122Publisher: Anthem PressPrint publication year: 2022