In:A Comparative History of the Literary Draft in Europe
Edited by Olga Beloborodova and Dirk Van Hulle
[Comparative History of Literatures in European Languages XXXV] 2024
► pp. 305–319
Get fulltext
1.4.3Prose
Extended and distributed creativity in prose fiction
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 8 November 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/chlel.xxxv.21bel
https://doi.org/10.1075/chlel.xxxv.21bel
Abstract
This chapter addresses and questions the seemingly solitary nature of prose writing, using two cognitive
theories (extended mind and distributed cognition) that place cognition outside the boundaries of the human brain and advocate
instead an inextricable connection between the brain and the world. Specifically, the tight coupling between the writing mind and
literary drafts testifies to the crucial importance of these objects to the writing process, and a number of examples of creative
collaborations (the Shelleys, Michael Field, Ilf and Petrov) demonstrate that creativity in prose writing is more often than not
distributed and as such is not that different from those genres that are typically considered collaborative (such as drama). This
distribution of cognition also applies to works that are not co-authored, as Beckett’s correspondence shows. The conclusion
relates the chapter’s main ideas to the future of prose writing, namely the advent of AI and its impact on creativity.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Authorship and writing studies
- Extended mind thesis
- Distributed cognition
- Overt distributed cognition: Collaborative authorship in prose fiction
- Covert distributed cognition: Samuel Beckett’s correspondence
- Conclusion: Authorship and AI
Notes References
References (36)
Artificial Intelligence, Language, and
Creativity. 2022. Colloquium with Annelies
Verbeke and members of the KULeuven Annelies Verbekebot
Team. Leuven, 9 March 2022.
Beckett, Samuel. 1984. “Three
Dialogues with Georges Duthuit.” In Disjecta:
Miscellaneous Writings and a Dramatic Fragment, ed.
by Ruby Cohn, 138–145. New York: Grove Press.
. [1979]
2009. Company. In Company / Ill Seen Ill Said / Worstward Ho / Stirrings
Still, pref. by Dirk Van Hulle, 3–42. London: Faber and Faber.
. 2011. The
Letters of Samuel Beckett, Vol. 2: 1941–1956, ed. by George Craig, Martha Dow Fehsenfeld, Dan Gunn, and Lois More Overbeck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bernini, Marco. 2014. “Supersizing
Narrative Theory: On Intention, Material Agency, and Extended
Mind-Workers.” Style 48 (3): 349–366.
Dever, Carolyn. 2022. Chains
of Love and Beauty: The Diary of Michael
Field. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Dhillon, Rhianna. 2018. “Ian
McEwan and Billy Howle discuss the new adaptation of On Chesil
Beach.” Interview, Penguin
Features, 15 May
2018, [URL]
Esslin, Martin. 1983. “Samuel
Beckett and the Art of
Broadcasting.” In Mediations: Essays on
Brecht, Beckett and the
Media, 125–154. London: Abacus.
Field, Michael. 2024. One
Soul We Divided: A Critical Edition of the Diary of Michael Field, ed.
by Carolyn Dever. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Flower, Linda, and John R. Hayes. 1981. “A
Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and
Communication 32 (4): 365–387.
Hayes, John R. 1996. “A
New Framework for Understanding Cognition and Affect in
Writing.” In The Science of
Writing, ed. by C. Michael Levy and Sara Ransdell, 1–27. New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates, Publishers.
. 2001. “Cognition,
Distributed”. In International Encyclopedia
of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, ed. by Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes, 2068–2072. Oxford: Pergamon.
Hutchins, Edwin, and Tove Klausen. 1996. “Distributed
cognition in an airline
cockpit.” In Cognition and Communication at
Work, ed. by Yrjo Engeström and David Middleton, 15–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ilf, Ilya, and Yevgeny Petrov. 1935. “Privychka dumat’ i pisat’ vmeste” [The
Habit of Thinking and Writing Together]. Rabochaya
Moskva 10.
Malfait, Olivia. 2015. “‘Against
the World’: Michael Field, Female Marriage and the Aura of
Amateurism.” English
Studies 96 (2): 157–172.
Mercer, Anna. 2020. The
Collaborative Literary Relationship of Percy Bysshe Shelley and Mary Wollstonecraft
Shelley. Abingdon-New York: Routledge.
Morton, Timothy. 1994. Shelley
and the Revolution in Taste: The Body and the Natural
World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murray, Alex, and Sarah Parker. 2022. “Introduction.” In For
That Moment Only and Other Prose Works, ed. by Alex Murray and Sarah Parker, 1–48. Cambridge: Modern Humanities Research Association.
Odessky, M. P., and D. M. Feldman. 2015. Miry I.A. Ilfa i E.P. Petrova: Ocherky verbalizirovannoj
povsednevnosti [The Worlds of I.A. Ilf and Y.P. Petrov:
Sketches of verbalised everyday
life]. Moscow: RGGU Press.
Robinson, Charles E. 2015. “Percy
Shelley’s Text(s) in Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s
Frankenstein.” In The
Neglected Shelley, ed. by Alan M. Weinberg and Timothy Webb, 117–36. London and New York: Routledge.
Stillinger, Jack. 1991. Multiple
Authorship and the Myth of Solitary
Genius. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tate, Carolyn. 2013. “Lesbian
Incest as Queer Kinship: Michael Field and the Erotic Middle-Class Victorian
Family.” Victorian
Review 39 (2): 181–199.
Tribble, Evelyn. 2005. “Distributing
Cognition in The Globe.” Shakespeare
Quarterly 26 (2): 135–155.
Van Hulle, Dirk. 2022. Genetic
Criticism: Tracing Creativity in
Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Hulle, Dirk, and Pim Verhulst. 2017. The
Making of Samuel Beckett’s Malone meurt / Malone Dies. London and Brussels: Bloomsbury/UPA.
Woodmansee, Martha. 1994. “On
the Author Effect: Recovering
Collectivity.” In The Construction of
Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature, ed.
by Martha Woodmansee and Peter Jaszi, 15–28. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
