(A dialogue between Science and Creative Writing)
“Crunching numbers from date of diagnosis, stage of cancer, vitals diagnostics…
“Her sunken eyes clutched onto the light, jaw clenched with a fierce will to survive… Estimated date of death: June 17th, 2019.”
It didn’t matter what the doctors said. She had found within her the strength to fight the cancer, and she would.”
(Science and Creative Writing engage in confrontation.)
Creative Writing, that is not how cancer works. Your words possess aesthetic, but your content is completely inaccurate.
We get it Science, you love to brag about your factuality. Facts here, facts there, facts everywhere, but they don’t mean a single thing without interpretation! My work, on the other hand, captures the truth of life from a human perspective.
Your works are highly inaccurate. You present ideas as an oversimplified whole, not accounting for important details. For example, you would characterize the sky as “blue”, when in reality, the sky itself is colorless and the molecules in the air scatter light to make it appear blue to human observers.
And why in the world does that matter? We are human, and we will always only be human.
I am the truth.
A truth that matters little in our human world. I tell the human truth, the one everyone experiences and cares about.
You exaggerate often, and do not conduct proper analyses to support your claims. You make assumptions based on your biases. You engage often in causation fallacies, such as oversimplification and exaggeration. For example, your memoir writers would blame bullying in their childhood for their lack of self-confidence. In reality, any personality trait is developed due to a combination of parameters. My truths, on the other hand, hold no bias.
But you have been proven wrong before, right?
So how can you claim that you are the bearer of the ‘ultimate truth’? *making a face and doing air quotes*
I cannot. However, unlike you, I am limited by human ability, not human whim.
Humans write as a way to express their emotions, which are constantly fluctuating. When your human writers are sad, they change you to evoke sympathy. When your writers are mad, they change you to evoke anger. They follow no set procedure, which makes you unreliable. On the other hand, my procedure is clear.
Yeah right... If you can’t tell, that was sarcasm.
You are correct: the rhetorical device you used is sarcasm. I have a database of all the rhetorical devices you use and how they are psychologically interpreted by their audience.
Rhetorical devices don’t come from your book. They are not strategically planned, but rather emerge like magic from the author’s heart. I am a transcendent process. I encapsulate the essence of creation, a neurological process you are not even close to being able to understand.
An analysis of your processes and their flaws:
Definition of Creative Writing: writing prose or poetry that displays “imagination”
Brief rationale: Modern society’s love of entertainment has created a need for Creative Writing.
Objective: to create a story that impacts its human readers’ emotions (as measured by body chemistry levels)
Risk and Safety Diagnostic: A percentage of authors in the past have experienced severe depression after they have been repeatedly obstructed by “writer’s block”
Generate ideas using brain. (Brain is unreliable, as my researchers still have more work to do before we can fully understand how it works.)
Transfer ideas to paper/computer.
Utilize knowledge of rhetorical devices to compose an “eloquent” story. (“Eloquence” being measured by readers’ and critics’ perceptions of the work. Each human writer’s individual life experience shapes their definition of eloquence, making it unreliable.)
Reread the story to correct grammatical mistakes or change content based on mental analysis of the potential changes’ impacts on the index of overall quality.
Locate publishing platform, then publish.
Human error: 95% of this procedure depends on the human writer. Not all human writers follow this procedure. A survey of 2018 is 90% confidence that 53% of all writers prefer not using a procedure at all, but rather “allowing it to come to them naturally”. In conclusion, there is significant human error involved in the process of Creative Writing.
Data Analysis of Creative Writing: The percent of Americans reading novels has declined from 20.3% to 19% from 2003 to 2017. The trend indicates the decreasing impact factor of writing.
Perhaps the numbers show that your impact is increasing beyond mine, but there are areas of me that you will never touch. Your love of numbers, of clarity, will be your downfall. Your power doesn’t work well with shapes without outlines, concepts without borders. You perceive detail, not nuance, and simply cannot navigate the strange, multi-dimensional worlds of human consciousness and experience.
Your power breaks down in dimensions of the world where certain humans could be another’s “sunshine” despite only reflecting 0.01% of UV light, where words could feel like “a thousand knives” despite the vibration from a human’s voice being far below the threshold of physical sensation, where eyes could be fireflies, where snowflakes could be dancers, where tears could be rivers.
Yet you do not understand any of this. If you would just take off your glasses and allow your vision to blur, you would be able to make out the essence of things. The colors, overlapping, intertwining, glowing brilliantly. The movement and the dances and the flow of spirits all around. If you would just take off your glasses, you might see a world of meaning, rather than one of truth.
It is true: I cannot understand the meaning of the world. I can, however, change the world. I am the foundation upon which the entire physical world is built. I made everything humans use on a daily basis--stoves, fridges, phones. I am able to cure disease, to create renewable energy, to facilitate long-distance communication.
And I change the world on a cultural level. You may produce phones, but I produce the entertainment that gives your phones purpose. You may change people’s lives, but I empower them. Writers and readers alike are given a new level of emotional fulfillment through me--something that no amount of your facts can replicate. Not to mention, without me to propel your value in society, you would not have the funding and manpower to exist. I create human intrigue for you. My descriptions of you got you your best scientists.
You are correct, but without me, you would not exist. I made the paper and computer you live on. My facts are the foundation of your work. Without my facts, you would be writing of nothing.
My muse dwells in my imagination. Imagination is a realm that defies all science, that glows with its immense power to breed thoughts in minds and lay words on paper. It’s something you’ll never be able to compete with.
Imagination is but a supplement for my content. Think of your craziest science fiction books. They enhance my concepts with imagination, but without my concepts, they would become fantasy.
Yet what did your famous--arguably your most famous--scientist, Einstein, say? Imagination is more important than knowledge.” For without imagination, your theoretical physicists would have never came up with quantum theory or relativity.
It is true. I need the imagination of your writers.
And perhaps you are right too. I do need your knowledge.
In the past, we have collaborated much in science fiction and in journalism, in the works of Stephen Hawking, Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei.
So why on earth are we arguing with each other? Would be better for us to discuss further collaboration rather than debate on who is superior? It seems we spend most of our energy playing this game of competition, arguing about who’s better, when really, we are stronger together.
“Crunching numbers from statistically combined impact factors…” Constructive discussion would have a greater positive impact on the Global Human Development Index.