Find help: All writing is *CREATIVE* writing (True / False) - Help.com

All original writing is creative writing.

Instruction manuals for toasters aren’t, they are informative writing.

Nutritional facts on cereal isn’t.

As Ikari said.

BD never mind the writing I want more music for my Saturday night - last week’s African stuff was immense - have I to sit here in silence? - Mas

Informative writing(as said by Ikari) is not creative.
Dictatorial writing is not creative.

Only originality is creative.

Cheers BD - I’d vote for yes - if I made toaster instructions I’d make them like a treasure map - it’s the person who isnt creative - not the writing

I voted no. If you want examples, read any public restroom wall.

Oooh there is always a job for someone with your talent at this place

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology…

But please odnt leave us all uneducated as we are - Mas

Interesting — I voted “yes”, but I find the argument that “formulaic” writing is *not* creative (except: someone had to *create* the formula). So in a really *oblique* way, you could say that that all “ingredients” were written once the *PRESCRIBED FORMULA* for creating such texts was defined (much like computer software code is written once, but can “executed” many times).How’s that for a comeback? ;D

Now that is not creative on my part cause I didnt come up with it, so see its not creative writing is it? (When I write it) So Ha!

And if some one told me to do it what then :o

Well, copying it wasn’t creative either, that was already done. Like I said, creativity is originality, meaning: if they don’t come up with it on their own, it’s not creative.
Now then, we can really get into this discussion in which case it will continue for a few days with no winner, or, we can just look at this from the surface and see that not all writing is necessarily creative.

RÃ¥ymond wrote:
All original writing is creative writing.

Rocco. wrote:
Well, copying it wasn’t creative either, that was already done. Like I said, creativity is originality, meaning: if they don’t come up with it on their own, it’s not creative.Now then, we can really get into this discussion in which case it will continue for a few days with no winner, or, we can just look at this from the surface and see that not all writing is necessarily creative.

Yeah I think your way is alot easier haha.

=D Sorry, that was actually RÃ¥ymond that said that, not I. Haha

RÃ¥ymond wrote:

RÃ¥ymond wrote:
All original writing is creative writing.

Rocco. wrote:
=D Sorry, that was actually RÃ¥ymond that said that, not I. Haha

It’s not plagiarism as long as you cite your sources. :D

I love writing. :) I’m an English major in college.

Is this creative?

http://help.com/post/180363-an-old-es…

Well I didn’t even realize I did it, the thought was just planted in my head, and I couldn’t remember anyone else that said it… Haha, dumb me. :P

Ooh, hey, it is! Haha! No’s win!

business-development wrote:
That’s an nteresting thought — is a single “footnote” enough to *disqualify* the “creative” aspect of writing?

You can write something original about an original work.

For example, I could write something about how I feel about a work of Shakespeare, and it would be original because it is an original work about how I feel about a particular piece of work, while citing the work in question as a source.

business-development wrote:
So “In the beginning there was the word” — and since then we have all been copycats?

Words aren’t original. The ideas you form by putting them together are original, as long as you aren’t copying another person’s idea.

I get the feeling that you post topics here to inspire critical thinking. :)

Are you a teacher?

Yes. is my vote. if copy machines dont write, if you think that copying is writing then that is not creative.. but I think even toaster instructions can be done well or not. I may just say everything has a creative variable, though.

RÃ¥ymond, do you ask everybody if they are teachers?

Rocco. wrote:
RÃ¥ymond, do you ask everybody if they are teachers?

Negative. While I do believe that anybody can be a teacher, I only asked him because he strikes me as such.

business-development wrote:
I wish I were — then I guess I would have more success in “explaining” how the online media work ;P — I mean in the context of “information retrieval” (aka “search”)….

I think you would make a good teacher. You’re good at getting people to think (which I feel is the point of teaching).

But I digress, I don’t wish to hijack your thread.

Again, when writing a dictionary, when reviewing a book, yada yada yada… Stuff like that is not creative.

business-development wrote:
( threads meander — that’s fine :)I do wish I could figure out what “non-creative” writing is….For the sake of argument, let’s say that all formulaic writing is *creative* when the formula (algorithm) is written (and thereafter it’s simply being “reprinted” according to the same formula).And let’s completely forget about photocopying (or something like that) — I don’t think that’s writing at all.In *that* scenario, would we be left with *all* writing being creative? Or would there still be some kind of “non-creative” writing left over?

If something isn’t copied then it is original, making it creative.

Rocco. wrote:
Again, when writing a dictionary, when reviewing a book, yada yada yada… Stuff like that is not creative.

I think you are confusing creative and interesting. Someone wrote the first dictionary, and that was creative to them.

A book review is original, because it is not a copy of the book, it is that person’s opinion on the book.

While we might not think these things are interesting, they are creative.

I think the real question is, “Is writing that is copied from another’s work true writing?”

I believe the answer is yes. If I am right than the answer to your question is no, but while a standard may be created or already exist, it is for the most part a personal preference as to whether or not the afore mentioned question’s answer is yes or no.

I’ll invite a few friends to vote. By the way this is an interesting post; it makes you think. Thank you.

I think all writing is creative because typically even objective writing espouses a particular point of view. This is necessarily influenced by the writer’s perceptions.

What would writing look like if it were free of the prejudice of pre-existing beliefs? What would it look like if it were free of persuasion, however subtle or semi-objectively presented?

Even dictionaries contain creative writing. What is not creative about the explication of the meaning of a word? There are different dictionaries, and most words are defined in different ways (albeit nominally).

Communication itself is creative. Words are symbols; they are inert. Which symbols will you use in attempt to convey to me abstract concepts such as feelings? Will I really understand? If I do, how will you know?

Take for example the word “creative.” It is defined by Merriam Webster several ways, and all meanings are correct. 1 marked by the ability or power to create : given to creating, 2 having the quality of something created rather than imitated (imaginative) and 3 managed so as to get around legal or conventional limits or deceptively arranged so as to conceal or defraud. By your use, you likely mean the 1st or 2nd definition. For argument’s sake, I’ll go with the second and say you mean “imaginative” writing. For brevity’s sake, say I take one of the three definitions of “imaginative” and choose “of, relating to, or characterized by imagination.” Imagination means 1 the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality 2 creative ability and 3 a creation of the mind. This is solely intended for thought about what communication (including writing) really entails. It does not lack complexity.

Do you give the same meaning to the same words? Did you mean it in the context in which I took it?

If communication itself is creative, and I assert it is, writing–a mere manifestation of communication–is also creative.

A brief note in addition: I looked at other responses and where people have given examples of un or non-creative writing (e.g. restroom signs, formulaic writing), the creation or use of a word to which most of us give the same significance is still creative. The constructive of a manual for the maximum understandability is creative.

Thus, I suppose it just becomes a game of semantics in how and what an individual defines as “creative.” How you define it will determine how you answer.

A note on plagiarism, it is not writing (in the sense of creation); it is copying. Reproduction is not creative.

anonymous85 wrote:
Reproduction is not creative.

On a completely unrelated note, I just happened to scroll down to the bottom of the page and my eye caught this sentence before I read your post.

Then I laughed. :P

Wicked good point… there is and there isnt…. but, someone had to create what was not creative writing to begin with… right?

There are easier ways to get my attention, Busi.

raymond thats so funny that you laughed at Reproduction is not creative, now I laughed too.

I still say any time you “construct” a sentence. it can be done with flair and able to excite the senses. or it can be boring and hard to understand.

Glad I could provide you with a laugh, Raymond. Never miss a pun, but decided to let that one go notwithstanding. If the clarification is necessarily (I suspect not), I meant “Xeroxing” is not creative.

In a way, all writing is creative (or enhances creativity). If you copy, you at least practice writing letters and words, which in turn may make you think, and so on.

And all writing can be made creative. Writing dictionaries is creative. Cross references and stuff can be improved.

But the real challenge is writing manuals!
All manuals are written by those who already know the stuff they write about, and they have forgotten how it was to not know it.
Manuals should therefore be written by those who don’t know it… a Catch 22 situation…
A pedagogic dilemma, and I see three main ways to go:

1) User-friendly products which need no manuals (I prefer those). Samples of a new product could be given to daycare centers as well as elderly’s homes - should those not be able to handle it without a manual, the product isn’t ready… This calls for creative minds!
2) Thoroughly made manuals, based upon extensive research and case studies on “all possible” situations. A good imagination is also required. These manuals can be interactive documents, like an application. It can even be interactive in writing (”if this situation arise, go to page 34″). Apart from being expensive to make, this type of manual always fails! Try to follow a Microsoft installation manual! Who has ever seen the same screen on the computer as it is expected to be according to the manual?
3) A very short description, telling virtually nothing apart from how you can call their expensive service organization. This method is used to “lock” customers into a longer relation with the producer, advantageous to the producer. That is creative!

Well, there is a fourth way which may not be very creative… It is when a product is accompanied by a mis-spelled and badly translated slip or book, apparently made only because “it is supposed to be”, but totally useless. Even the stated phone numbers in those are usually fakes. It is like selling “Dr. Dralle’s Birkenwasser Lotion” (usable for everything, from oiling your bicycle chain to regaining your hair or fixing your digestion) on marketplaces - just sell it and disappear!