Strange bedfellows: theory and the muse

Creative Writing and theory have long had a problematic relationship, one that is arguably based on mutual neglect and one that is complicated by the alleged death of one of the partners. This chapter therefore seeks to reconsider the significance of theory for Creative Writing research. It aims to remedy the misperception of theory instated by Creative Writing scholars and practitioners, and hence to counter theory’s marginalisation from within Creative Writing circles in the academy. It rekindles the debate about the supposed antagonism between these two fields of study and attempts to re-invigorate the conversation by provoking writers to reconsider their understanding of theory’s usefulness to their practice. It argues for a plurality of theories while pointing out that theories grounded in postructuralist conceptions of language may be more conducive to Creative Writing research as these facilitate a deeper understanding of both product and process. This chapter singles out psychoanalysis as a case-study, for psychoanalysis is only at best a work in progress, and therefore not a ‘theory.’ Thus it makes a case for a theory that does not consolidate our certainties, but rather disrupts these, thereby opening up creative possibilities that can in turn be theorised. A psychoanalytic understanding of subjectivity does indeed enable writers to gain insights in their own creative processes. This in turns permits them to scrutinise the very concept of knowledge production in ways that are not envisaged by other models of subjectivity. Psychoanalysis may only be useful in that it suggests that both writing and the subject are constructions in the making, yet by grappling with the theory itself, new teaching methods and methodologies arise.