>My analysis found support in Charles Mauron’s psycho-critic, which also
>provided a scheme to test his theory, a scheme according to which one can
>actually measure the amount of creativeness in relation to biographical
>stability or instability. The stress was very much on the stimulant effects
>of neurosis on the creative mind.

This is a strange form of romantic "science." One would have to question at
least two variables: the meaning of neurosis and the meaning of creativity.

One would also want at least two control groups: a random sample of
non-neurotics, and another random sample of neurotics, however the
researcher wishes to define them, so that one could arrive at a baseline
level of "creativity" for each group--it would be useful for this kind of
study to know whether neurotics who aren't famous are more "creative" than
non-neurotics who aren't famous.

I worked with a woman years ago who didn't seem particularly neurotic to
me. She was raising several children alone while on welfare and working as
much as welfare allowed in those days. She spent a lot of time telling me
about her very creative ways of maintaining a humane and healthy life for
herself and her family on a very limited budget, and she seemed to
experience the discovery of a new way to provide nutritious meals at low
cost very much the way I experience discovering a new way to express
whatever I'm expressing. Does Mauron consider that creativity?

Or is Mauron saying not that neurotics are more creative than non-neurotics
but that humans (and presumably other organisms--I'm thinking of urban
coyotes) tend to be more creative when they have to deal with stress? If
so, that hardly needs demonstrating.

Mark